Alex Jones trial going about how you’d expect

How else would you become informed about a despot who took advantage of lemmings all too willing to sell their souls?

 

Why you cant understand how he defamed them is beyond me. This isn't censorship

 

Dude, no one gets defamed at a circus. Jones said the parents who lost children and did interviews were “crisis actors” … how is it not defamation to call people frauds and liars?

 

All those words to pretty much say what I said. Truth is truth.

 

Here's the thing though. He basically yelled fire in a theater. His false claims led to harassment and death threats to these families. He endangered people recklessly.

Defamation suits happen all the time and are nothing new. They are not a thread to 1A. 1A does not allow for defamation that endangers people.

 

Sorry to be on the other side of righteousness.

It isn't to justify what he did, it is to question why him and not others? And to me, there are WAY worse players who just skate. This all feels like a righteous killing of a scumbag whose crime was to emulate other scumbags...who are either better connected or their message isn't so "out of what we want to nurture." I am not supporting him, I am including him in with the others. And to select his version of "scumminess" as being prosecutable whereas others' are just in poor taste (the Kansas folks for example) is using the first amendment in an arbitrary way, IMO.

 

But you didn’t answer my question, how is telling his audience that parents of the dead kids were frauds, lairs, and crisis actors not defamation? That sort of thing is damaging to their reputation, is it not?

I’m actually surprised he hasn’t been sued before. He said Michelle Obama was a man and the Obama’s kidnapped their children…. But the Obamas didn’t sue.

Contrast that to Trump, who sued a guy, and got a settlement, who had tposted Malania was a former hooker on his blog…

 

The Kansas folks are lawyers. They know exactly where the lines are and stay on the legal side of the line. Their funding model is actually to be as obnoxious as legally possible, then sue those who cross the line in retaliation, and when they win the lawsuit, the proceeds go to the organization to fund future protests.

 

This is why I believe HE believes it. He said what was necessary in court, and also lied through his teeth there about his wealth, true feelings, etc.

But also, pragmatically, what are his options? He is THIS, and not a single thing more. Cop to a scam, people like me will never give him a cent, AND he loses his only revenue stream. Worse, they’ll turn the viper pit on him like he does today. He’ll be the one looking for a nut he created trying to kill him.

This is the vicious cycle of profiteering off of lunatics. There is no floor. You might be king today, and it is indeed counted by day. A fruitier cake is right behind you at all times.

 

I have no idea why people keep raising the “yells fire in a crowded theatre” example. That theoretical example has more to do with people who use speech to set off riots or panics (came up a lot discussing Trump and others culpability for 1/6).

There are other types of “speech” that aren’t protected from civil action, such as false and misleading claims a.k.a “fraud”. Libeling or defaming a person. It doesn’t even have to “endanger” them as this stuff does, it could literally just be financial loss or loss of reputation.

I have no idea what tegator is going on about. This case seems an extremely obvious case of defamation, the most disgusting case imaginable.

 

This a glib answer but, US Constitution speaking, whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? Or what I prefer from B. Franklin: "your right to express your opinion ends at the tip of my nose."

Sorry, but the bad players have been around for a LONG time. He isn't a modern version of Charles Manson. Again, I am not proclaiming he is a misunderstood soul, I am saying put him in with the rest and prosecute the whole damn lot WITHOUT capriciousness and arbitrariness. To me he is a convenient blow-off valve to some folks who like being in control and prefer to use a scapegoat.

And as I posted several times, the first amendment is the first listed for a reason. It is THE main rock the US's foundation is built. Lose it and the rest will NOT hold up. It just won't.

 

See my post before this. Level the field.

 

I think you might be misinterpreting that. Sounds like he saying your right to express your opinion ends when it harms someone. That is why we have liable, slander, and defamation laws.

 

You are not mistaken, in the more modern incarnations of what is and and isn't allowed. You are conveniently missing my main point that I want MUCH better accounting of what is crossing the line. Too many elites are getting "apologist" status for convenience, IMO.

 

Because it caries the same dangers as yelling fire in a theater. It creates a mob mentality of people who believe what they hear with no truth to it. That mob than recklessly harms innocent people.

The person yelling fire did so knowing the risk of endangering innocent people. But for selfish reasons did it anyway.

I get the legal difference. But morally they are quite similar and neither is protected speech.

 

I keep hearing from one of mine that the judge was unfair and biased (and that I should quit reading the msm). Don’t know where he is getting that. I’ve looked on line and can’t find much using Google. Does anyone know what the genesis of that thought might be. @duchen pointed out that the plaintiff ignored an email wrt to phone contents saying “disregard”. Is that it or is there more?

 

The judge ruled against Alex Jones, isn't that proof enough of their unfairness and bias?