Families of Sandy Hook shooting victims win legal victory in lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones

May 22, 2018
3,147
2,174
240
#1
Six families of victims killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School won a legal victory Friday in their fight against controversial radio and internet personality Alex Jones.

A judge in Connecticut has granted the families’ discovery requests, allowing them access to, among other things, Infowars’ internal marketing and financial documents.

The judge has scheduled a hearing next week to decide whether to allow the plaintiffs’ attorneys to depose Jones.

The plaintiffs include the parents of five children who went to the school as well as family members of first-grade teacher Victoria Leigh Soto and Principal Dawn Hochsprung, according to a statement from the plaintiff's attorneys.

According to the statement, the plaintiffs allege a "years-long campaign of abusive and outrageous false statements in which Jones and the other defendants have developed, amplified and perpetuated claims that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged and that the 26 families who lost loved ones that day are paid actors who faked their relative's deaths."

It goes on to say that "Jones' actions subjected the families and survivors of the Sandy Hook shooting to physical confrontations and harassment, death threats and personal attacks on social media."

"From the beginning, we have alleged that Alex Jones and his financial network trafficked in lies and hate in order to profit from the grief of Sandy Hook families. That is what we intend to prove, and today's ruling advances that effort," Chris Mattei, one of the attorneys representing the families, said in the statement. "We look forward to gaining access to Infowars' internal marketing and financial documents to show that Jones has built an empire as nothing more than a conspiracy profiteer, as alleged in our complaint."

https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-c...g-victims-win-legal-victory/story?id=60314174


Good.
 

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
3,635
4,551
625
#2
Completely out of the loop as to who that guy is and what info Wars is.

They are making money by saying Sandy Hook shooting wasn’t real? And the family wants damages from the lies info Wars is telling about Sandy Hook?
 
Jul 12, 2012
10,054
1,266
500
#3
Completely out of the loop as to who that guy is and what info Wars is.

They are making money by saying Sandy Hook shooting wasn’t real? And the family wants damages from the lies info Wars is telling about Sandy Hook?
You've never heard of Alex Jones or infowars? Have you been living under a rock thus far this century?

That said, as such you haven't missed out on anything of much value.
 
Likes: S-Wind

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
3,635
4,551
625
#4
You've never heard of Alex Jones or infowars? Have you been living under a rock thus far this century?

That said, as such you haven't missed out on anything of much value.
I heard info Wars was kicked off of YouTube I think. Other than that... no.

I wouldn’t say I love under a rock. More like I have an obsession with Baseball lol
 
Likes: 嫩翼

嫩翼

so it's not nice
Apr 2, 2013
1,408
800
600
臺北市, 臺灣
#7
I'm not going to pretend I haven't gotten too deep in some other conspiracy theories (not using InfoWars as a source), but this Sandy Hook one is bizarre. I don't follow the news really, so hearing this even went to trial is something. Must have really struck the families.
 
May 17, 2012
5,079
832
455
Canada
#13
Perhaps if he wasn't deplatformed these families could have gotten even more money out of him. Its not like he stopped producing content, he just did so with a much lower revenue stream. See what happens when grievances operate outside of the courts.
 
Likes: MrRogers

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
790
329
205
#18
I mean the conspiracist stuff is quite interesting, if wrong, claims of photoshopped evidence in family photos, claims of subsequent photos showing the children still alive and are now older. Quite crazy stuff.
 
Jan 19, 2007
10,878
349
1,135
#19
What happened to them sucks, but when did spreading dumb rumors become an illegal act?
You cant just say whatever you want free of repurcussions. If someone can prove that a comment or claim made has demonstrably caused harm or hardship to you then the law does allow you to seek remedy.
 
May 22, 2018
3,147
2,174
240
#20
I mean the conspiracist stuff is quite interesting, if wrong, claims of photoshopped evidence in family photos, claims of subsequent photos showing the children still alive and are now older. Quite crazy stuff.
I wouldn't describe malicious and selfish lies aimed at grieving families of dead children as "interesting", but hey thats just me I guess.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
839
1,277
215
#21
You cant just say whatever you want free of repurcussions.
Yeah, you kind of can. At least legally. The only restriction to free speech that this could possibly fall under is slander, and I don’t think that applies here (you’d have to make the argument that Jones knew Sandy Hook happened and stated otherwise for profit - but it’s literally impossible to prove that). They seem to be going for a harassment standard here too, but again, you’d have to show that Jones was intentionally leading a harassment movement, when it seems fairly obvious that his listeners were acting on their own.

The really weird thing is that nobody can prove that Sandy Hook happened. That’s kind of what the conspiracy here is all about. A lot of people have been trying VERY hard to prove Sandy Hook happened or didn’t happen, but the lack of independently verifiable evidence is astounding. There should be six dozen ways for people to prove Sandy Hook happened, and they’ve been stonewalled on every single one of them - like having the police called when they try to check what should be publicly available government records. People dismiss Sandy Hook denial without actually looking into it and assume it is a bunch of crazy people with crazy beliefs, but if you look into it, there’s enough weirdness there that even if Sandy Hook 100% did happen, the government is covering something about it up - and that makes it worth allowing deniers the right to publicly speak about it.

I think this court victory is a very dangerous one for free speech and falls into the same railroading that’s been happening on YouTube, Apple, PayPal, Twitter, Facebook, Cloudflare, and others. One might even go so far as suggest that there is a literal conspiracy against Jones. I don’t know if Jones has the truth about Sandy Hook or not, but the ferocity at which they are going after him seems GREATLY disproportionate to his sin.
 
Dec 3, 2018
839
1,277
215
#22
I mean the conspiracist stuff is quite interesting, if wrong, claims of photoshopped evidence in family photos, claims of subsequent photos showing the children still alive and are now older. Quite crazy stuff.
As with all conspiracy theories, there’s a mix of legitimate stuff and crazy stuff. The crazy stuff is out there nuts, which casts doubt on the legitimate stuff - but it’s worth looking into because there’s enough legitimate stuff there to make this conspiracy theory have teeth. I’m not sure I believe that the entire event is a hoax, but I absolutely believe that the story we got as the public is not what really happened. I think it is a stretch to say it was faked to enact gun control laws though. That seems like kind of a dumb reason to fake the most horrific school shooting in history.

There’s a good documentary on this that they keep removing from YouTube called, “We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook”. It’s out there in the interwebs thought and worth watching.
 
Likes: OSC
Jan 19, 2007
10,878
349
1,135
#24
Yeah, you kind of can. At least legally. The only restriction to free speech that this could possibly fall under is slander
Complete horseshit. I've already explained why in my post. Demonstratively proven to have caused harm and / or damage.

Walk into an airport and tell them you have a bomb strapped to you and let me know how 'free speech' works out for you. See also examples of incitement to riot, public disturbance etc.

and I don’t think that applies here (you’d have to make the argument that Jones knew Sandy Hook happened and stated otherwise for profit - but it’s literally impossible to prove that). They seem to be going for a harassment standard here too, but again, you’d have to show that Jones was intentionally leading a harassment movement, when it seems fairly obvious that his listeners were acting on their own.

The really weird thing is that nobody can prove that Sandy Hook happened. That’s kind of what the conspiracy here is all about. A lot of people have been trying VERY hard to prove Sandy Hook happened or didn’t happen, but the lack of independently verifiable evidence is astounding. There should be six dozen ways for people to prove Sandy Hook happened, and they’ve been stonewalled on every single one of them - like having the police called when they try to check what should be publicly available government records. People dismiss Sandy Hook denial without actually looking into it and assume it is a bunch of crazy people with crazy beliefs, but if you look into it, there’s enough weirdness there that even if Sandy Hook 100% did happen, the government is covering something about it up - and that makes it worth allowing deniers the right to publicly speak about it.

I think this court victory is a very dangerous one for free speech and falls into the same railroading that’s been happening on YouTube, Apple, PayPal, Twitter, Facebook, Cloudflare, and others. One might even go so far as suggest that there is a literal conspiracy against Jones. I don’t know if Jones has the truth about Sandy Hook or not, but the ferocity at which they are going after him seems GREATLY disproportionate to his sin.
I'm not usually entirely dismissive of peoples posts without providing some form of reasoning, but having read the rest of your dribble, I'm not going to bother even entertaining this rubbish.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
790
329
205
#25
I wouldn't describe malicious and selfish lies aimed at grieving families of dead children as "interesting", but hey thats just me I guess.
Look they may be lies but some of those people actually believe this stuff, they're not all malicious in intent but misguided and misinformed. They see someone laughing moments before going on camera, and apparently not showing what seems like real emotion, and they take such as evidence of acting. We do not all grieve in the same manner, and some people can't relate with the actions of others during such moments. Then they start pulling at anything that looks like a loose thread in the official story, and start to cob a web of what are mostly lies but with some hints of misinterpreted truth to hold it all together.

But as always we must be able to question even the most outlandish of claims, and not dismiss them outright, even if they're entirely wrong, disproving them and providing additional information on why the evidence found could mislead some can help debunk conspiracy theories.

Debunks and counter debunks, are good. They help shed light on the truth and any potential deviation from what is known. Also it eventually becomes that one side basically starts to prove the other, and necessarily starts becoming basically a straw man as the position becomes evidently untenable.

In things like climate change with enough information, it can be seen, that the debunk counter debunk cycle is coming to an end and agreement is being reached by both sides, at least those most informed coming from both sides.
Yeah, you kind of can. At least legally. The only restriction to free speech that this could possibly fall under is slander, and I don’t think that applies here (you’d have to make the argument that Jones knew Sandy Hook happened and stated otherwise for profit - but it’s literally impossible to prove that). They seem to be going for a harassment standard here too, but again, you’d have to show that Jones was intentionally leading a harassment movement, when it seems fairly obvious that his listeners were acting on their own.

The really weird thing is that nobody can prove that Sandy Hook happened. That’s kind of what the conspiracy here is all about. A lot of people have been trying VERY hard to prove Sandy Hook happened or didn’t happen, but the lack of independently verifiable evidence is astounding. There should be six dozen ways for people to prove Sandy Hook happened, and they’ve been stonewalled on every single one of them - like having the police called when they try to check what should be publicly available government records. People dismiss Sandy Hook denial without actually looking into it and assume it is a bunch of crazy people with crazy beliefs, but if you look into it, there’s enough weirdness there that even if Sandy Hook 100% did happen, the government is covering something about it up - and that makes it worth allowing deniers the right to publicly speak about it.

I think this court victory is a very dangerous one for free speech and falls into the same railroading that’s been happening on YouTube, Apple, PayPal, Twitter, Facebook, Cloudflare, and others. One might even go so far as suggest that there is a literal conspiracy against Jones. I don’t know if Jones has the truth about Sandy Hook or not, but the ferocity at which they are going after him seems GREATLY disproportionate to his sin.
one of the more curious claims is that the fbi official crime death statistics used to show zero deaths for that zone and timing of the event. As well as anomalies at the coroner records.
That is quite unfortunate.
yes but people receive violent punches to the head and bikelocks to the head for merely supporting trump or conservative positions.

There are a lot of crazy people out there, and stuff like say comicgate, gamergate, or seemingly being a controversial public figure is enough to get the crazy out of the woodwork and into your life.

You basically do anything online, or say just about anything about anyone, and expect someone to be offended and expect death threats.

Jones, could have said Hook is all true merely repeating news about the tragedy and they'd get death threats regardless, just due to publicity.

People try to kill others, random women go to have sex with serial killers who are in jail and some want to have the baby of this random stranger serial killer. Publicity will get crazy after you. Was it keanu who got a random stranger woman invading one of his places of residence?
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
839
1,277
215
#27
When the people got death threats from those BELIEVING those dumb rumors posted as "real news".
There was one crazy woman who was actually arrested for it, so we know what some of those threats were. They were barely death threats. “Look behind you, it’s death”. You’ll get worse death threats on Twitter for saying the wage gap doesn’t exist. And she wasn’t even an Alex Jones listener. They were blaming it on posts by a university professor who was fired for Sandy Hook denial.

Complete horseshit. I've already explained why in my post. Demonstratively proven to have caused harm and / or damage.

Walk into an airport and tell them you have a bomb strapped to you and let me know how 'free speech' works out for you. See also examples of incitement to riot, public disturbance etc.
You don’t seem to be particularly familiar with how limitations to speech work. Incitement is a specific limitation to speech that requires a imminent lawless action test that checks if the action is imminent and likely. It wouldn’t apply to independent behavior made based on information Jones shared. Jones would literally have to say, “go harass these people” with the expectation that such an outcome was likely. I’m pretty sure he didn’t do that though.

I'm not usually entirely dismissive of peoples posts without providing some form of reasoning, but having read the rest of your dribble, I'm not going to bother even entertaining this rubbish.
I advocate skepticism in all things, but not ignorance. I’m fine if you think I’m full of shit, but go do your research before coming to that conclusion. People who make up their mind without doing due diligence are the worst kind of ignorant.
 
Likes: OSC
Dec 3, 2018
839
1,277
215
#29
Maybe you should take your own advice. Defamation requires proving that Jones knew what he was stating were lies and spread those lies precisely to harm the reputation and livelihoods of the parents. I get the distinct impression that Jones did not believe they were lies when he reported on it. That’s why they are going after him on harassment rather than defamation.
 
Likes: OSC

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
790
329
205
#31
Conspiracy theorists selectively focus on or ignore particular details in order to fit their preferred narrative.

Always keep that in mind.
it's a sort of cognitive bias, if they find even a single piece of evidence convincing enough to elicit doubt they will start cobbling all possible evidence to substantiate that doubt and dismiss all evidence that silences that doubt.
 
Jul 16, 2017
761
564
335
#32
Maybe you should take your own advice. Defamation requires proving that Jones knew what he was stating were lies and spread those lies precisely to harm the reputation and livelihoods of the parents. I get the distinct impression that Jones did not believe they were lies when he reported on it. That’s why they are going after him on harassment rather than defamation.
What are you talking about .. all 5 cases are defamation cases. Unless they changed the original lawsuit ?
 
Dec 3, 2018
839
1,277
215
#33
Conspiracy theorists selectively focus on or ignore particular details in order to fit their preferred narrative.

Always keep that in mind.
While true, it’s also worth pointing out that many conspiracy theories have some truth mixed in with the bias. A healthy skepticism is required to not fall down the rabbit hole, but I tend to find news on conspiracy groups weeks, months, and years before it hits anywhere else. For instance, we’ve known all about Epstein’s Lolita Express, his secret island, and his sweetheart deal for years, and most people only found out with the Miami Herald article a month ago.
 
Last edited:
Likes: OSC
Dec 3, 2018
839
1,277
215
#34
What are you talking about .. all 5 cases are defamation cases. Unless they changed the original lawsuit ?
You’re right. The article does mention that, but spent more time talking about the harassment. They are awarded discovery to attempt to prove Jones knew it to be lies, but I don’t think they’ll find that. This is a guy who snuck into the Bohemian Grove. He’s a true believer, through and through. What they are really looking for is dirt they can use to discredit Jones, even something simple like him thinking his audience is a bunch of gullible fools. They won’t be able to prove defamation, legally, but they’ll still take down Jones from this somehow.
 
Likes: OSC
Jul 25, 2013
5,287
260
390
England
#35
Eh, fuck Alex Jones.

He's a conman who makes a living selling shit called "brain juice" to vulnerable idiots.

Of course the asshole knew what he was doing with Sandy Hook.

He's literally had to admit that "Alex Jones" is a show persona in attempts to get off the hook in similar cases.

There are so many people in the world who deserve benefit of doubt about who they are or why they do what they do. Someone who sells "brain juice" and already admitted in a legal setting that his personality is a show piece, isn't one of those people.

He set his vulnerable/gullible goons on people who have had their babies shot to death in a mass murder to the point where some literally had to move house more than one time to avoid the harassment. Just for profit.

Fuck Alex Jones and everything to do with him.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
790
329
205
#36
Eh, fuck Alex Jones.

He's a conman who makes a living selling shit called "brain juice" to vulnerable idiots.

Of course the asshole knew what he was doing with Sandy Hook.

He's literally had to admit that "Alex Jones" is a show persona in attempts to get off the hook in similar cases.

There are so many people in the world who deserve benefit of doubt about who they are or why they do what they do. Someone who sells "brain juice" and already admitted in a legal setting that his personality is a show piece, isn't one of those people.

He set his vulnerable/gullible goons on people who have had their babies shot to death in a mass murder to the point where some literally had to move house more than one time to avoid the harassment. Just for profit.

Fuck Alex Jones and everything to do with him.
he still shouldn't be deplatformed, though, free speech and all that.

People didn't mind his brand of crazy till he hit some nerve probably with some element of troublesome truth regarding something? That is when the serious censor hammer started hitting him.
 
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#38
one of the more curious claims is that the fbi official crime death statistics used to show zero deaths for that zone and timing of the event.
This is because the conspiracy theorists look at the wrong table in the criminal statistics town, rather than state police. The table they refer to is on page 245 here: https://www.dpsdata.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2012/Crime In Connecticut COMPLETE 2012.pdf
See note three on the statistics, and look at the state police statistics on page 47 and the overall statistics for the state on page 14.
 
Likes: OSC
Mar 12, 2013
2,841
83
350
#40
This is because the conspiracy theorists look at the wrong table in the criminal statistics town, rather than state police. The table they refer to is on page 245 here: https://www.dpsdata.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2012/Crime In Connecticut COMPLETE 2012.pdf
See note three on the statistics, and look at the state police statistics on page 47 and the overall statistics for the state on page 14.
Jeez, I wonder what the conspiracy thinkers' response to this will be.

-Maybe I've been wrong ?
or
-Of course they would put this number in the official records as part of the plot
 
Last edited:
Likes: OSC
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#41
While true, it’s also worth pointing out that many conspiracy theories have some truth mixed in with the bias. A healthy skepticism is required to not fall down the rabbit hole, but I tend to find news on conspiracy groups weeks, months, and years before it hits anywhere else. For instance, we’ve known all about Epstein’s Lolita Express, his secret island, and his sweetheart deal for years, and most people only found out with the Miami Herald article a month ago.
Reputable sources have reported on Epstein’s activities for years. Have you taken a skeptical approach to the documentary you recommend earlier?
 
Likes: OSC
Dec 3, 2018
839
1,277
215
#42
This is because the conspiracy theorists look at the wrong table in the criminal statistics town, rather than state police. The table they refer to is on page 245 here: https://www.dpsdata.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2012/Crime In Connecticut COMPLETE 2012.pdf
See note three on the statistics, and look at the state police statistics on page 47 and the overall statistics for the state on page 14.
It appears that there were looking at a different table altogether, albeit one based on your link, but lacking the associated footnotes. It appears the discrepancy comes from the fact that state police investigated Newtown, and thus were classified different in the FBI’s table.

Personally, I’ve always found paperwork irregularities to be the weakest evidence. Like, apparently Adam Lanza’s death certificate listed the day before the massacre (like people have never accidentally written the wrong date - all day Thursday, I thought it was Friday). Also, all the houses in Newtown are listed as $0 sold on Christmas day, but that’s obviously placeholder data (placeholder data shouldn’t remain for years, nor be available to the public record, but that doesn’t make it proof of a criminal conspiracy).

When researching this lawsuit, I discovered that another Sandy Hook parent, some guy named Lenny Pozner, had sued Wolfgang Halbig previously. The suit was dropped after Pozner refused to show up to court in person. The conspiracy guys think Pozner is a fake person and dropped out when Halbig requested discovery on him, such as birth certificate and whether he worked for any government agency. Also, Pozner’s lawyer wanted for his client to appear by telephone only, but the courts insisted he show in person. After delaying for half a year, the lawsuit was unceremoniously dropped. Some time later, Halbig apparently found out that Pozner was using the SSN of a deceased woman and used multiple aliases (including owning guns registered to them). I swear, just when you think you’ve scratched the surface of the weirdness surrounding Sandy Hook, you find some new bit of WTF.
 
Likes: OSC
Dec 3, 2018
839
1,277
215
#43
Reputable sources have reported on Epstein’s activities for years.
But not the extent of it. Reputable sources had a broad overview of the Lolita Express and the charges against Epstein, but As the Miami Herald piece showed, it was way worse than reported. The conspiracy groups went and found actual flight records and interviews with Epstein’s underaged prostitutes that were ignored until recently. In one particular amusing example, they used Google maps to check out the island itself and discovered a weird masonic temple with owl statues all over it on the island.

Have you taken a skeptical approach to the documentary you recommend earlier?
Of course. I don’t think most of it presents particularly strong evidence. But there’s definitely things in there which make me think there was a cover up of some sort. Stuff like not letting paramedics into the school or reportedly waiting until 2am when there were no cameras to remove the bodies. Certain information that should be public record being hidden away under lock and key. I also thought the extensive flood damage and black mold made it seem like the school was in a terrible state of disrepair that no parent would send their child to, so I’m of two minds on whether I even think Sandy Hook was a functioning school at the time.

Do I think Sandy Hook was a hoax? Not exactly. But I do think there’s something definitely weird in how it was handled by officials, and suspicious in how it was presented to the public. Speaking purely on conjecture, I think it is likely that a tragedy did happen there, but I think the Adam Lanza story was created to cover up what really happened. How the story we got was preferable to the truth, I couldn’t speculate on.
 
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#44
Look at the methodology section of the fbi page:
Methodology
  • The data used in creating this table were from all city and town law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2012.

Just like in the data supplied by conetticut police I linked to, sandy hook was reported by state police, not city or town.
If you look at the data for Connecticut as a whole, there were the same amount of murders as in the link I provided.

Edit: the sandy hook victims are included in table 11 on the fbi page. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....t_by_state_tribal_and_other_agencies_2012.xls

Edit2: if the people behind infowars did their research they would have known that state police were in charge of the case and that their reports go in a different table on the fbi website, so either their research was questionable or their story is deliberately misleading. That this story is still on the website with no amendments speaks volumes about their credibility.
 
Last edited:
Likes: OSC
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#45
But not the extent of it. Reputable sources had a broad overview of the Lolita Express and the charges against Epstein, but As the Miami Herald piece showed, it was way worse than reported. The conspiracy groups went and found actual flight records and interviews with Epstein’s underaged prostitutes that were ignored until recently. In one particular amusing example, they used Google maps to check out the island itself and discovered a weird masonic temple with owl statues all over it on the island.


Of course. I don’t think most of it presents particularly strong evidence. But there’s definitely things in there which make me think there was a cover up of some sort. Stuff like not letting paramedics into the school or reportedly waiting until 2am when there were no cameras to remove the bodies. Certain information that should be public record being hidden away under lock and key. I also thought the extensive flood damage and black mold made it seem like the school was in a terrible state of disrepair that no parent would send their child to, so I’m of two minds on whether I even think Sandy Hook was a functioning school at the time.

Do I think Sandy Hook was a hoax? Not exactly. But I do think there’s something definitely weird in how it was handled by officials, and suspicious in how it was presented to the public. Speaking purely on conjecture, I think it is likely that a tragedy did happen there, but I think the Adam Lanza story was created to cover up what really happened. How the story we got was preferable to the truth, I couldn’t speculate on.
Most reputable sources are concerned with defamation lawsuits. Much of the story was reported in 2015, the story you refer to is a victory lap that sums up what miami herald reported earlier. I prefer getting my news a couple of months later, but having an identifiable source and being able to assess their credibility and agenda more openly, but that’s just me.

I haven’t looked into the black mold thing, but schools tend to be large buildings, and some students were moved to a different school before the shooting, maybe some of the rooms were deemed ok, or they had a problems relocating all of the students (Only guessing here).
None the less you found the documentary important enough to promote to other people, instead of listing the facts that rub you the wrong way about the case.
Most of what has been presented here is either debunkable if you look for alternative reasons, or tidbits of a broader picture.
If you look at the overall picture what is more plausible: some kids were killed at a school or some people faked a school shooting to change the second amendment.
 
Dec 3, 2018
839
1,277
215
#46
Most reputable sources are concerned with defamation lawsuits. Much of the story was reported in 2015, the story you refer to is a victory lap that sums up what miami herald reported earlier. I prefer getting my news a couple of months later, but having an identifiable source and being able to assess their credibility and agenda more openly, but that’s just me.
It has nothing to do with defamation lawsuits. Corporate media is corporate run, and it looks out for corporate interests. You just won't hear about how Monsanto is killing all the bees from a media source that sells advertising to Monsanto (or if there is a conflict of interest, like being owned by Disney). That's not to say the other news sources aren't untrustworthy - you have to approach every new piece of information with healthy skepticism. But at least when you get news from a source you don't trust, you do the leg work and check the sources rather than taking things at face value because of their reputation.

A good example was how Jill Stein was treated by the "reputable" media. They all painted her as a crazy vaccine denier, when if you actually listened to her talk, nothing could be further from the truth. It's only through alternative news sources that I even found the full quotes, unedited and with proper context. Basically, nothing about the 2016 election was reported accurately or fairly and you pretty much had to use alternate news sources to even get a handle on what the politicians actually said and did (not to mention any accurate reporting on WikiLeaks outside of Glenn Greenwald). Hell, same stuff still happens. CNN will go nuts about something Trump said out of context, but you go and check the actual quote and it wasn't nearly as bad as CNN made it out to be.

I haven’t looked into the black mold thing, but schools tend to be large buildings, and some students were moved to a different school before the shooting, maybe some of the rooms were deemed ok, or they had a problems relocating all of the students (Only guessing here).
I think the going theory right now is that Sandy Hook was not being used as a school at the time of the shooting. The school had been relocated to another location a few months earlier (I want to say Chairs Elementary or something like that). I don't really know, or frankly care. I just saw the extensive water damage and mold and thought, there's something off about that school.

None the less you found the documentary important enough to promote to other people, instead of listing the facts that rub you the wrong way about the case.
It's been a long time since I looked into Sandy Hook, but I will say that I went from believing that Sandy Hook deniers were absolute idiots to thinking there might be some hidden truth in what they are saying after watching that documentary. I'm not sure what I believe on the subject, which is a stark change from when I was absolutely sure.

Most of what has been presented here is either debunkable if you look for alternative reasons, or tidbits of a broader picture.
If you look at the overall picture what is more plausible: some kids were killed at a school or some people faked a school shooting to change the second amendment.
I don't think the shootings were faked to change the 2nd amendment. I think parts of the story were faked, and because the story is fake, I don't know what conclusions to draw about what actually happened. To what extent it is fake or to what ends, I don't know. But I don't think we've been told the whole truth of what happened that day, and I don't think we ever will. I'm okay with leaving it at that though. I don't need to know what really happened, and I wouldn't feel any more comfortable with curbing Alex Jones' first amendment rights even if I was absolutely certain he was wrong (there's a lot of ways a loss for Jones could set a dangerous precedence for online discourse).

I think it's like the Parkland shootings. Something definitely happened there, but I don't believe that a group of high schoolers, still reeling from grief and shock, could manage to organize a national march with 500,000 people less than a month later. Whatever did or didn't happen at that school, somebody was working behind the scenes to manipulate how the public saw and responded to it. I'm less interested in the shooting than I am in the media manipulation surrounding it.
 
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#47
In Scandinavia there is little direct advertising by Monsanto (roundup is getting banned) here they mostly offer research grants and pay pseudo scientists like Bjørn Lomborg to gain support. I don’t know what it is like in America, but most msm should have a diversified portfolio of advertisers that would let them take the hit, i know they do here. Even if Monsanto has this kind of gravity, then media aren’t brave enough, or they owned by too few individuals.

The conspiracy theories about sandy hook seem to revolve around the plot I mentioned, if they don’t what is the reason to set up such an elaborate tragic story?
Edit: maybe both shootings just happened and it had some consequences. That is usually how life goes.
 
Last edited:
Likes: OSC

Ailynn

Faith - Hope - Love
Jan 1, 2017
279
964
455
East Tennessee, USA
#48
I believe Alex Jones may have started out with good intentions, and perhaps some part of him really believes most of what he proclaims as 'truth.' I can believe some conspiracy theories may hold some truth, and I certainly don't accept everything the media tells us about any given situation. (And yes, Fox News is absolutely included and one of the worst in the bunch in my opinion.)

Still, the man is a fear-mongerer. I highly doubt that he truly believes everything he bellows out for his audience. It may seem that his immense paranoia has fractured his mind, but I don't believe he's as crazy or even as angry as he lets on.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." - Exodus 20:16

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." - 1 John 4:18

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." - 2 Timothy 1:7
 
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#49
I believe Alex Jones may have started out with good intentions, and perhaps some part of him really believes most of what he proclaims as 'truth.' I can believe some conspiracy theories may hold some truth, and I certainly don't accept everything the media tells us about any given situation. (And yes, Fox News is absolutely included and one of the worst in the bunch in my opinion.)

Still, the man is a fear-mongerer. I highly doubt that he truly believes everything he bellows out for his audience. It may seem that his immense paranoia has fractured his mind, but I don't believe he's as crazy or even as angry as he lets on.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." - Exodus 20:16

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." - 1 John 4:18

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." - 2 Timothy 1:7
But after decades in media he should be aware of his responsibility. He should know his audience well enough to stop inciting them against people that lost their loved ones. He drives them on, even though anyone taking a critical view of his news knows he is lying through his teeth, and would rather double down on those lies than admit he was wrong.
Edit: he has a story on his website from 2014 that is plain wrong, and didn’t amend or delete it
 
Last edited:
Likes: Ailynn
Apr 9, 2009
27,004
1,420
815
#50
Any proper interpretation of the first amendment acknowledges there are limits to free speech . Examples of this include:

- Yelling fire in a movie theatre.
- Yelling bomb in a plane.
- Telling family members at a soldier's funeral that they are going to hell.
- Telling parents of dead kids that their kids never died and are actually actors.

If you act like an asshole in a bar, they can kick you out. Likewise, if you act like an asshole in society, society can call you out on your dumb bullshit.

Also I remain skeptical that many of Jones defenders also defended NFL players kneeling during the national anthem lol