Alex Jones trial going about how you’d expect

Sorry we all talk around and around.

I am talking about the "convenient" truth that he has been dinged for "the correct side" whereas others (NY Times and Washington Post) have been plainly doing less-than-stellar journalism. I want THEIR money in addition to his. Don't you think their cut may be a nice chunk of change to the Treasury?

That is all I am doing. I could not care less about Mr. Jones. I truly don't.

I care about the justification of capricious and arbitrary rulings because you have friends in higher places who have you around for a reason. Jones does not...yet.

 

In a banana Republic, you can accuse parents whose children have been murdered of lying and being method actors and claim that their kids never existed. As for others paying up, anyone who does the same is exposed to a defamation verdict to if the appropriate proof is made

 

Where are these defamatory NYT articles?

Let's compare.

 

Revisionist history...based on convenience. I am not going to belabor my points again. They ARE there...if you choose to open your mind. As I said, routines that confirm our biases are damn hard to break.

 

You are welcome to sue the NY Times or WaPo in civil court if they have ever knowingly reported malicious lies about you that led to pain and suffering. You can then choose to have a jury of your peers hear both sides of that argument and determine if either publication did in fact knowingly spread malicious lies about you, and they may award you tons of money in damages.

If during discovery of that civil trial, evidence is brought forward showing other criminally illegal activity by one of those news agencies, the appropriate level of prosecutor may then bring criminal charges against them.

That's the reality of what's happened with Alex Jones. He's not a poor downtrodden man who's Constitutional rights are being stomped on. He's a lying sack of s*** that profited from repeatedly lying about Sandy Hook victims and their parents, and now those parents are justifiably suing him in civil court.

I personally hope that he's left completely bankrupt, and if any criminal wrongdoing is discovered, that he's put in jail for as long as possible within the law.

 

To add: I cannot imagine an emotional pain worse than if my three year old son was viciously murdered at his day care, spending his last hour on earth in fear, panic and pain wishing I was there to make it go away. I can feel my anxiety rising just visualizing it enough to write out these sentences.

For Alex Jones, these parents going through that hell wasn't enough. He used his platform to call them liars and actors, and to say their children never existed, just to make some money. And he did it so vehemently and frequently that some of his deranged listeners actually hounded and harassed these parents, ambushing them and forcing them to relive the pain and anguish associated with their memories of Sandy Hook, and even amplifying it with the implied message of, "your child's life and death is not important enough to respect."

Alex Jones is the absolute scum of the earth. He deserves the very worst that can come to him in this life and the next. He makes me hope, beyond my personal beliefs, that the Christian God is in fact real, because Alex Jones deserves to burn in hell for all eternity.

Anyone defending this man, even tacitly, has bankrupted their moral compass over stupid and petty political partisanship.

 

Fine. Sue those establishments and take it to court. See how it goes. That is how it works in America.

And that is what happened here. The people who were defamed sued, took it to court, and won in a slam dunk over that POS.

 

I completely understand. The same standard should apply to all. No question.

 

Pretty sure one in particular was settled before trial right? Or am I thinking of WaPo?

 

I don't understand. You're really still pushing this point? I asked before and I don't think you answered. How do you think this sort of thing is supposed to go? A family sues Alex Jones for the lies he said about them and their child. Do you think the judge should toss their lawsuit because they're not suing the New York Times for something?
Can you answer that?

 

If Jones felt he had a good defense he would have presented one. He didn't and got summary judgment against him. What we saw on tv was simply the first penalty phase.

 

If you are talking the Sandmann thing, a federal judge dismissed it for lack of evidence of defamation.

 

We are still waiting on you to list the instances of the NYT or any other mainstream outlet “getting something wrong” comparable to Jones calling the families of murdered kids… crisis actors.

 

Sarah Palin also sued. In that case I believe they corrected the record and apologized (for whatever it was), but Palin sued anyway, and lost. Palin is also a public figure, which is a higher bar for succeeding as plaintiff in defamation cases, but aside from that if you make the correction and apologize that usually takes care of the “malice” angle.

This Sandy Hook stuff is some of the ugliest media defamation I’ve ever heard of against private citizens. The idea there is some long list of aggrieved/libeled Americans who “deserve Justice” against the mainstream media before this egregious Alex Jones case of defaming mass shooting victims can even be considered, seems… let’s say… fanciful.

 

There's no question that the Times and every other media outlet has gotten stuff wrong.It's inevitable when you produce a lot of stories. The Times runs corrections every day. But you're not going to find anything remotely close to what Jones has done, which is blatantly lie about the same subject steadily for a decade.
Beyond that, the idea that Jones shouldn't be sued for something he did because, you know .. The New York Times ...

 

Thank why the settlement with specifics kept locked down?
The Washington Post settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann after viral March for Life controversy - CNN

 

Two of the media outlets decided to hedge their risk with (likely small) settlements. The outlets that continued fighting the case (which included NYT) got it dismissed for lack of evidence.

 

We have no idea.
What we KNOW is they settled.

What risk is there if you didnt do it?
A media outlet would generally fight because a settlement looks like guilt and their integrity was on the line.

 

What risk is there if you didn’t do it? You still have to pay your lawyers. Settlement is not an admission of guilt. It’s often times just the most affordable/easy way to solve the problem.

 

I would agree if journalistic integrity wasnt at stake. It's why the NYT decided to fight.
I think you go and win those cases to uphold your integrity.

Regardless the point was that examples do exist.