many of the parents and their surviving kids were threatened with physical harm as well as being traumatized by AJ's sicko fans .
The lowdown on the ~$1 $Billion Alex Jones Sandy Hook defamation jury award - where does free speech end, & criminal liability begin?
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
mark mywords
Active member
playing devils advocate a little but is Jones responsible for his fans?
He presented his interpretation of the facts (already accepted that he told people what they wanted to hear) is he responsible for what his fan base do with that knowledge?
As far as I know and maybe I am wrong he didnt tell them to go and threaten people, doing that was their own choice.
A certain law maker chooses to insult and verbally harass a survivor of a school shooting but so far as a I know has never been sanctioned for it.
"Marjorie Taylor Greene later addresses her viewers, echoing false yet frequently spread conspiracy claims that mass shooting survivors and family members of victims are “crisis actors” and the attacks that killed their loved ones were staged as a plot to pass gun control laws."
Legally yes. Falsely "declaring fire in a crowded theater", inciting to riot, there are other examples. This near $Billion jury award is the sanity check.
mark mywords
Active member
But is that what he did?
Incitement to riot, unless I missed something his words and opinions fell a long way short of that,
Suppose the NBC news tonight carries a story about a white person being beaten to death by a group of black teens and a group of white idiots go out for revenge and attack and kill some black people,
Did the NBC incite them? If the story proves to have been wrong and the white person died of a heart attack and black youth rendered first aid whilst a crowd gathered are NBC responsible for the aftermath of the initial story?
Just to make myself absolutely clear, what Jones said was vile and abhorrent but I dont see how he is responsible for how adults used his words.
MTG's lawyer must be on standby right now
I don't know what the limits of it are m #24.
Perhaps we can both agree if he'd said: "Hey you over there! The one in the orange shirt! Start rioting .... NOW !"
Even if that's not the statute, there's evidently another statute that covers it. And by scale of the jury $award, the harm was deemed considerable.
Bottom line, the guy's a dirtball.
It not only disgraces Jones. It disgraces his sycophants party to it. Shame on them all.
My condolence to the bereaved.
Perhaps we can both agree if he'd said: "Hey you over there! The one in the orange shirt! Start rioting .... NOW !"
Even if that's not the statute, there's evidently another statute that covers it. And by scale of the jury $award, the harm was deemed considerable.
Bottom line, the guy's a dirtball.
Compounding the despair of bereaved parents by broadcasting lies denying the tragedy, all for $fame and $fortune is absolutely despicable.
It not only disgraces Jones. It disgraces his sycophants party to it. Shame on them all.
My condolence to the bereaved.
mark mywords
Active member
absolutely but he was only saying what others wanted to hear and even dirt balls have rights-
Alex Jones' Infowars Store Made $165 Million Over 3 Years, Records Show
Alex Jones' Infowars Store Made $165 Million Over 3 Years, Records Show
New court records first obtained by HuffPost illuminate how the conspiracy theorist has built an empire hawking supplements and survival gear.
Prelude to an argument of legitimacy due to superior legitimate priority.
and are not exempt from society's ethical standards. It's bad form to spit in the face of dozens of bereaved parents victimized by one of the worst mass-murders in U.S. history. And doing so for publicity, for celebrity, and for $money is beyond disgraceful.
Not everything that is legal to say is appropriate to say. And the jury has deemed this both inappropriate and illegal.
mark mywords
Active member
DOZENS of bereaved parents vs thousands perhaps tens of thousands that believe Jones' version.
I know the tyranny of the masses and all that but should the tail wag the dog?
agreed, disgraceful, immoral and borderline evil but should it be actionable?
either you have free speech and the right to say unpopular /unpleasant things or you do not, the right to say popular or nice things has no need of legal protection
If the criterion of validity were a simple arithmetic ratio, independent of how illegitimately derived, you might have a point.
It isn't.
You don't.
In fact, you're trying to leverage the scale of Jones' offense to justify it, as if stealing a $Billion $dollars isn't as bad as stealing a $thousand.
I know you know how to make a valid point m #28, which raises the question, why not here?
Jury says yes.
Not merely correct, but an important point that warrants frequent (occasional?) reminder. BUT !!
The jury seemed to believe this crossed the line from hurtful, to dangerous.
You know what these radical wing-nuts are like m #28. No need to speculate about whether they're dangerous or not. What's A.J.'s take on Jan 6?
in my eyes, yes, jones IS responsible for that harassment. he knows that he is akin to a cult leader to his fans, and as that, they take his words as gospel. what he spouted was pure lies and hate speech, and as far as i'm concerned, he and the crazy laser bitch( greene) should both be in jail for spreading that hate speech.
it's very similar to the hate speech spouted by preachers, you know? they know exactly what they're doing with influencing their " flocks, and it's deliberate and malicious.
nbc reports what they're told, and admits it when they're wrong. not jones though.
nope. dirtballs do NOT have any right to spread lies.absolutely but he was only saying what others wanted to hear and even dirt balls have rights-
Alex Jones' Infowars Store Made $165 Million Over 3 Years, Records Show
Alex Jones' Infowars Store Made $165 Million Over 3 Years, Records Show
New court records first obtained by HuffPost illuminate how the conspiracy theorist has built an empire hawking supplements and survival gear.www.huffingtonpost.co.uk
mark mywords
Active member
Well the simple fact is that it isnt (I know that you have some crazy laws and lock people up for life for stealing candy bars) but here a small theft doesnt even raise the interest of the police
Even in your country there is a distinction between petty larceny and grand theft
Juries are not always to be relied on in matters like this they tend to be more concerned with feelings than laws
slander and libel are against the law. so is hate speech. this fits all 3.
mark mywords
Active member
how about people who arent dirt balls?
lies are only lies once they have been proven to be so
I floated a scenario above about a news report in which an error was made and people acting on it
lol, i have to ask, do you know phyler, by any chance? we argue ALOT about juries.
and i replied. jones is still standing his ground on this, at least on his show.
b #31
The New York Times, "a newspaper of record" makes no secret of its printing retractions. IIRC when Apollo 11 landed on the moon NYT published a retraction of an opinion it had published decades earlier that rocket propulsion in a vaccum was impossible, because there was nothing against which for the rocket energy to push against.
"If you make a mistake, and you know it's a mistake, and you do not correct your mistake, you have made two mistakes." Chinese aphorism
The New York Times, "a newspaper of record" makes no secret of its printing retractions. IIRC when Apollo 11 landed on the moon NYT published a retraction of an opinion it had published decades earlier that rocket propulsion in a vaccum was impossible, because there was nothing against which for the rocket energy to push against.
"If you make a mistake, and you know it's a mistake, and you do not correct your mistake, you have made two mistakes." Chinese aphorism
Let's dock him another $Bil.
that's entirely possible, there are still a few cases in the dockets, lol!Let's dock him another $Bil.