To assume the NYT Times and WaPo are “getting away” with something relative to Infowars suggest you think they are all peers. Laughable. Kind of funny. You state the standards for a defamation/malice case are high, did you consider those bars were met (and thensome!) in this Jones case? Like… are you holding out for the possibility these victims are crisis actors? Otherwise I have no idea what you are getting at.
Again, he was not ordered to pay money because he was a scumbag. He was ordered to pay money because he committed defamation, and the plaintiffs proved their case.
Yes, if you believe ridiculous conspiracy theories about globalists and the like, then you can always make yourself into the victim of "them." However, in the real world, something far more simple happened. Alex Jones made a bunch of money defaming the families of children that were murdered. Those families sued him. The court held that they proved the case to the requisite degree required. Not a globalist or somebody that wants to make the frogs gay or whatever. Then, the jury, not a globalist conspiracy, decided on the damages and a punitive amount to attempt to convince him not to do it again.
Jones is here and now. He is THE news cycle in a bunch of ADD populaces. I get it. Their transgressions were not in this cycle. It does not mean they did not occur, just that we didn't hear anything close to "the tobacco industry FINALLY is getting their due". And I want your side to own that fact, that there are some "creative interpretations" of the A1. And that is a bad sign.
Time to end this repartee. You see what you see and I see what I see. We are not going to change each other's minds. And again, just to leave it there and go ahead a reply if you think you must, this is way, WAY bigger than Jones and his actions.
Jones net worth is far more than I would have imagined, which makes this case all the more sick. He’s defaming these people in the most heinous way possible, and it’s all for $$$. That’s even worse than your normal run of the mill defamation case, which might be between two people who know/hate each other. This is just straight up evil, (tormenting totally innocent private citizens who were also victims of a heinous crime). You realize the NYT and Wapo employ professional journalists, right? Most of them probably don’t have 1/100th the net worth that Jones enterprise of lies brings him. But they are not free from defamation suits when they make mistakes (I pointed out the Sandman example earlier, Sarah Palin also sued, I’m sure they actually get sued with some frequency). Maybe these organizations don’t get “nailed” because the court cases against them are weak or they aren’t actually showing malice? Maybe when they make an actual mistake they simply… correct the record. Seriously, give me an example of defamation as egregious as making up lies about mass shooting victims. I’ll wait.
It is not. Jones wants to portray it as such for profit and to avoid liability for his actions. You do for your own reasons. But "globalists" didn't do this. Alex Jones did. And now he will pay. Exactly as it should be. And no amount of both-siderism or mysterious conspiracies will change that.
Time to end this repartee also. You get the last word if you want. You could be correct...or the standard is SO high because it is private entities and not tyranny-potential governments doing the deeds (but not in Jones' case, allegedly by me or at least to the level of the penalty) OR the fox IS in charge of the hen house. Gee, I wonder why there aren't any chickens in the house? Can't prove malice. Oh well, time for America's Got Talent!
I am unaware of the NYT or WAPO stating the Sandy Hook parents were crisis actors. Have they done something equally egregious? Were the victims prohibited from suing? Is the law not applied equitably as your posts infer?
A lot, mostly probably, to be sure. But also people like my uncle, who has just always been captivated by conspiracy. Even AJ was at one time just sort of a kook. More like George Noory, who I am still unsure of to this day. He had obvious mockery on regularly, my fave being the two “competing” Bigfoot capture teams. One time one of them finally got him, only to have the other team invade the camp and free him so that the first group didn’t “win.” George played it as if he believed every word, and I honestly don’t know if he was in on the joke or not. But it was all harmless. Sure, he had some NWO stuff too, but it was never treated differently than Bigfoot. He may have really believed that too, but he never called for executions and insurrections. I used to have a blast talking this stuff with my uncle. But sure enough, he evolved with the AJ faction into a fear of existential evil that leads to considering difference of opinion as a threat to his being. He’s unapproachable now. I actively avoid him, and that’s a shame. I think the closest AJ came to the truth was his testimony that he was insane (my paraphrase.) But I don’t believe HE believes that. He truly thinks Michelle Obama is a man, and how that poses a threat to your very existence and all the nuttery required to connect all those dots is his real mind. Now that anyone can “produce” this content, it’s open season. Mass shooters are spawned from this shit, which in turn just drives the mentality farther. Those very killers are now false-flaggers and CIA plants, and the psychosis only grows. It’s a diabolical positive feedback loop, and I don’t see the solution. If AJ were to repent, sincerely, today, he’d immediately be swallowed by the machine he currently maintains.
IMO, yes. They have the "too big to fail" moniker. And if you read some of my posts, I believe they are the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. My point isn't so much that Jones is a decent guy and he got caught doing something less-than-stellar and should be given a mulligan, it is that the rules of libel, defamation, and malice are VERY high standards to meet to get a prosecution. It is because governments are prone to tyrannical motivations, whereas the private entities usually don't have that luxury. However, unregulated monopolies can fall into that trap, but usually they become fat and lazy rather than malevolent. They are supposed to be accountable to the government entity that granted them monopoly status. In Virginia, that is the State Corporation Commission, which is the bureaucracy they have to appeal to, to get permission to generate more revenue. The NY Times and the Washington Post have been dinged plenty of times by the "truth seekers" but they have always claimed it was due to "rogue journalism" rather than a corporate policy. But documentation has indicated the executive branches (and including the upper-level editors) knew and endorsed this "rogue" behavior. But what they got for their agendas is mainly a shrug. That is the standard, based on precedent. Jones is NOT getting the same treatment. And to my OP, that is exactly (IMO) what Griner is experiencing in Russia and her desire to have some personal drugs in her possession. And again, I say Russia is a totalitarian state with a likely despot running it. What is the US's excuse for having double standards? Methinks it has something to do with who is in power (parties) and what the handlers of the elected officials want to do. But that is just me.
If the media didn't tell me who Alex Jones was, I'd have no idea. It's tough for me to get real mad from there.
Ahhh, thanks. I only have two people blocked. Te was because he never ever wrote anything of substance - just inane takes. Until the covid thread, where 95 lost his mind, I'd only ever had Te blocked.
How much $$$ have you sent to that carnival barker? There are much more deserving local charities that could put that to good use
If you must know, I don't send money to anyone and I did NOT vote for Trump, either time. I am a GDI, if you know what that means. Why do you think this isn't some convenient way to justify censorship, or even downright tyranny, because there are enough folks who hate the damn man? Does anyone have a clue as to what the first amendment is designed? Have we bought into so many caveats and provisos that we don't understand why it is the first amendment for a reason? Is history and human nature SO quaint and obsolete? I will just say, it is a form of moral hazard, and any society who does not implicitly understand its meaning and sanctity will no longer be a society in its current incarnation. It is the law of the jungle, and it doesn't just go away because we don't want to be bothered by the details.
