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

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
798
329
205
#52
Because civil cases aren't prosecuted...

jfc, not everything is evidence of societies misandrist, sjw slant
i know, but the laws changing in a negative way is still in effect, and something that needs reversal.

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
I think most would drop that thread unless something ridiculous was shown such as the other tables only came into existence years after.
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
Society can call you out, but they can't kick you out. On the internet you're like at sea, it is not one venue or location, and deplatforming of speech should be impossible.
 
Last edited:
Oct 1, 2006
2,730
2,074
1,090
#53
Alex Jones is hilarious but he was saying some crazy crazy stuff about Sandy Hook.
Regardless, he should be allowed to say it and even profit off of it if he finds a market. That is what free speech is about.

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
Westboro was still allowed to say it, just not at a private event. Your examples are not similar to this situation at all.

Hopefully this lawsuit fails, or else the US will see more fascist creep into our lives.
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#54
I think most would drop that thread unless something ridiculous was shown such as the other tables only came into existence years after.
Did table 11 in fbi’s crime report for 2012 come out years later than table 8? Did the Connecticut crime report for 2012 come out years later?
 
Likes: OSC
Aug 24, 2016
1,844
562
345
#55
Nothings going to happen. I've seen the original original tape, Alex Jones has had people on saying the stuff but he nor his new organization never said that they WERE fake actors, in fact his lawyer said in the original video has him attacking CNN accusing them of being behind a green screen instead of actually there and a caller said that it was a set-up because of drills and other stuff that happened before the shooting but Alex also in that same clip said pray for the families of the dead children. If that is the original video they won't be able to go much further.

Some guests and radio call ins did say some crazy stuff but I've never seen him say half the stuff he's being accused of. Plus he's not one of the originators of the claim so why they are specifically targeting Jones is very odd to me.

Now of course if the lawyers lying about the original video that would be another thing, but the videos been around and it seems to be the lawyers telling the truth, if so nothing will happen.
 
Likes: OSC
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#56
Nothings going to happen. I've seen the original original tape, Alex Jones has had people on saying the stuff but he nor his new organization never said that they WERE fake actors, in fact his lawyer said in the original video has him attacking CNN accusing them of being behind a green screen instead of actually there and a caller said that it was a set-up because of drills and other stuff that happened before the shooting but Alex also in that same clip said pray for the families of the dead children. If that is the original video they won't be able to go much further.

Some guests and radio call ins did say some crazy stuff but I've never seen him say half the stuff he's being accused of. Plus he's not one of the originators of the claim so why they are specifically targeting Jones is very odd to me.

Now of course if the lawyers lying about the original video that would be another thing, but the videos been around and it seems to be the lawyers telling the truth, if so nothing will happen.
I have debunked one of the stories on his site from 2014 that is still up on his site, he could have verified it back then and changed his story, but he keeps a blatant lie circulating.
 
Apr 9, 2009
27,019
1,424
815
#58
Nothings going to happen. I've seen the original original tape, Alex Jones has had people on saying the stuff but he nor his new organization never said that they WERE fake actors..
"Yeah, so, Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are, that they clearly used actors. I mean they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey -- so yeah, or Pakistan. The sky is now the limit. I appreciate your call."

Gonna take some real semantics gymnastics to convince me and most rational people that he's not calling them actors. He is clearly saying they clearly used actors lol and that he THOUGHT real kids were killed. (also he uses "they" because he also thinks its a false flag. wonderful.)
 
Likes: OSC
Aug 24, 2016
1,844
562
345
#59
"Yeah, so, Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are, that they clearly used actors. I mean they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey -- so yeah, or Pakistan. The sky is now the limit. I appreciate your call."

Gonna take some real semantics gymnastics to convince me and most rational people that he's not calling them actors. He is clearly saying they clearly used actors lol and that he THOUGHT real kids were killed. (also he uses "they" because he also thinks its a false flag. wonderful.)
First off no source.

Second off, again, even in this quote he says that kds were killed, which is one strike against the family.

but the issue is the charge is he was one of the originators, and the proof goes back to the first broadcast on Sandy hook and that original Broadcast is opposite of what the families been promoting which will be used against them.

Alex Jones has been sued numerous times for similar claims and looking at the track record, he usually doesn't lose against any accusations. I mean, sure the guys had many issues over the years, but I think people are picking bad battles against him. He's had people go over and interrupt meetings, tag someones house, disturb the peace, and other more easy to verify things that no one wants to go after him for for some reason. If you want to sue or get Alex Jones charged with a crime, that would be much easier than this.
 
Dec 3, 2018
850
1,293
215
#61
Any proper interpretation of the first amendment acknowledges there are limits to free speech.
Actually, a proper interpretation of the First Amendment would suggest that any limitations on free speech should be as narrow and limited as possible, as the freedom of expression is one of the most valued and fundamental parts of our society, and the foundation of which our democracy is built upon. A lot of young people don't appreciate this, and that's why I think they are assholes.

Examples of this include:

- Yelling fire in a movie theatre.
- Yelling bomb in a plane.
Hmm, I'd like you to go spend about 5 minutes of research on this. I think you'll find out that the FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater comes from one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever (in which they argued that the government can more tightly restrict speech during wartime, and that a guy handing out anti-draft flyers could be arrested for draft obstruction) - pure bullshit, and most constitutional scholars agree that this was a terrible ruling. Luckily, through future cases, this standard was largely overruled and replaced with a more limited requirement for "imminent lawless action". That is, the requirement is that something illegal must happen immediately, not in some undefinable future.

Context matters. So, like, you can yell bomb on a plane if there is no imminent danger that you will be taken seriously, and you can yell bomb on a plane if you actually believe there to be a bomb. How this relates to Alex Jones is that saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax and that the parents are actors does not represent a threat at all, much less a credible, imminent one.

I think it would be incredibly difficult to prove it to be slander too, since public figures have weaker defenses from slander and you'd have to prove that he had reason to believe to believe they weren't actors when he reported that they were - but that's be difficult too if he were simply reporting on what other people have said rather than his own speech (in which case, Wolfgang Halbig would be the primary defendant in the lawsuit and Jones would not be involved at all). I'm not sure exactly what he did say, as all Info Wars stuff was basically scrubbed from the internet. I may see if they got around to adding it to their website directly yet.


- 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.
In Snyder v Phelps, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of Westborough when picketing a soldier's funeral. Basically, they said that speech needed to be free and wide open, and that speech on public issues occupied the highest rung of First Amendment values. Westborough picketed quietly in a public space without interrupting the funeral. Judge Roberts wrote, "Any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself." Roberts also went on to say that the way to deal with this sort of speech was to create laws that made a buffer zone around the funerals, rather than "empowering juries to punish unpopular speech" - which is what you linked above.

In short, Westborough is not limited in what they can say or to whom, but are limited to when and where (and NARROWLY restricted at that). They could still picket the homes of the families, though not the funerals directly. Presumably, there would be a point where ordinances such of these run afoul of the First Amendment. I know in my hometown, they were having trouble passing noise ordinances because of free speech issues (apparently, playing your music at full blast at 3am is considered free speech, and it was a tricky thing to work around).

Telling parents their kids aren't dead and that they are actors might be construed as "fighting words", due to the fact that they are private speech rather than public speech, and would reasonably cause anyone's blood to boil. But I'm pretty sure the fighting words doctrine also requires an immediate reaction, so something like leaving a message like that on someone's answering machine wouldn't apply. I guess basically, people are going to say nasty things - sometimes REALLY nasty things - and generally speaking, the First Amendment has defended them except in extreme cases.

Likewise, if you act like an asshole in society, society can call you out on your dumb bullshit.
Depends on what you mean by society. If you mean that others are free to use their freedom of expression to say nasty things about you, then generally speaking, yeah (same restrictions as listed above). If you mean that you can be arrested or that laws can be made to prevent you from saying dumb bullshit, generally speaking, no.

Also I remain skeptical that many of Jones defenders also defended NFL players kneeling during the national anthem lol
I've never had a problem with it, other than thinking it was kind of lame - but the freedom of speech has never depended on the speech being smart or cool.
 
Likes: infinitys_7th
Dec 3, 2018
850
1,293
215
#62
Look at page one, I replied to OSC and debunked a post later from another member that tried to follow up with a link to infowars. Reply 38 and 42 edit, and #44
Huh? I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I was just saying that the reason why people wouldn't see what you saw is that they were looking at a different chart that didn't have the footnotes. I then went on to say that I didn't think paperwork irregularities made for particularly compelling evidence. What exactly did you debunk? That I was agreeing with you?
 
Nov 19, 2018
6
2
70
#63
This isn’t a free speech debate.

The question should be, is Alex Jones and Info Wars responsible for its listeners’ actions?

Alex Jones never called for people to give death threats to families.

He is not accountable for the consumers of his product.

It’s a Silk Road or Mega Upload free market thing.

In my opinion forum creators are not responsible for their users actions. Is what he did probably wrong? Yes. Is he to be held responsible for other people’s actuons? No.

It isn’t slander or fraudulent to have a theory.
 
Last edited:
Likes: OSC
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#64
Huh? I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I was just saying that the reason why people wouldn't see what you saw is that they were looking at a different chart that didn't have the footnotes. I then went on to say that I didn't think paperwork irregularities made for particularly compelling evidence. What exactly did you debunk? That I was agreeing with you?
You offered a link to an article on infowars from 2014 that Alex Jones hadn’t amended to reflect reality, my beef in this case was with infowars, not you. They should have known that sandy hook went in table 11 rather than 8, yet they keep misleading people.
 
Likes: OSC

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
798
329
205
#66
Did table 11 in fbi’s crime report for 2012 come out years later than table 8? Did the Connecticut crime report for 2012 come out years later?
i would hope not. But these people have open discussion no ban forums, so such would come up as counter debunkings, and these people aren't all acting in bad faith, if such is pointed they often put clarifications or disclaimers showing they were wrong. If such mysteriously doesn't emerge in open discussions between skeptics and conspiracists, obviously the corrections can't be added.
Some guests and radio call ins did say some crazy stuff but I've never seen him say half the stuff he's being accused of. Plus he's not one of the originators of the claim so why they are specifically targeting Jones is very odd to me.
rumor is the nerve jones hit is starting to bring light to the growing power and influence of the chinese on western media, corporations, and politics.
I have debunked one of the stories on his site from 2014 that is still up on his site, he could have verified it back then and changed his story, but he keeps a blatant lie circulating.
you know if he sees a counter debunking of the debunking he may not retract, we have to explore if the conspiracists have done a counterdebunking to the debunking, and the degree of validity if any.

These things go debunking counterdebunking counterdebunking counterdebunking, and keep going like that. OF course not all arguments in defense are of meaningful quality
This isn’t a free speech debate.

The question should be, is Alex Jones and Info Wars responsible for its listeners’ actions?

Alex Jones never called for people to give death threats to families.

He is not accountable for the consumers of his product.

It’s a Silk Road or Mega Upload free market thing.

In my opinion forum creators are not responsible for their users actions. Is what he did probably wrong? Yes. Is he to be held responsible for other people’s actuons? No.

It isn’t slander or fraudulent to have a theory.
agree it is like a novelist inventing a fictional glamorized serial killer and multiple real world copy cats emerging. He is not responsible, and his speech should not be silenced.
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#67
i would hope not. But these people have open discussion no ban forums, so such would come up as counter debunkings, and these people aren't all acting in bad faith, if such is pointed they often put clarifications or disclaimers showing they were wrong. If such mysteriously doesn't emerge in open discussions between skeptics and conspiracists, obviously the corrections can't be added.

rumor is the nerve jones hit is starting to bring light to the growing power and influence of the chinese on western media, corporations, and politics.

you know if he sees a counter debunking of the debunking he may not retract, we have to explore if the conspiracists have done a counterdebunking to the debunking, and the degree of validity if any.

These things go debunking counterdebunking counterdebunking counterdebunking, and keep going like that. OF course not all arguments in defense are of meaningful quality

agree it is like a novelist inventing a fictional glamorized serial killer and multiple real world copy cats emerging. He is not responsible, and his speech should not be silenced.
-
 
Last edited:
Likes: OSC

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
35,684
73
1,120
#68
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.
You believe what Halbig says? Please explain to me how he got Pozner's "fake" SSN. It's fucking pathetic that anyone believes the ramblings of a hoaxer like him.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/...t-kind-of-person-calls-a-mass-shooting-a-hoax
In the wake of the massacre, Halbig started the website sandyhookjustice.com. He touted his credentials as a former security director for schools in Seminole County, Florida, and claimed he worked on the official investigation into the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999. He said his knowledge of security protocols and procedures provided him with a singular ability to analyze what happened that day in Newtown, and highlight what he believed to be the government's many lies.
In November, the HONR Network released an ebook on Halbig, called "The Hoax of a Lifetime." The volume runs more than 100 pages, and digs deeply into his past. One of the things the group reports is that it could find no evidence that Halbig ever worked on an official investigation related to Columbine. But that is not the most interesting revelation. It seems Halbig's tenure as director of security of Seminole County schools was rather unremarkable, save for one particular incident: in 1997, a student stole his gun. He expressed embarrassment to the Orlando Sentinel. "I mean, gosh, I'm the director of security," he said.
It's embarrassing that anyone gets roped in by these conmen.
 
Dec 3, 2018
850
1,293
215
#69
You believe what Halbig says? Please explain to me how he got Pozner's "fake" SSN. It's fucking pathetic that anyone believes the ramblings of a hoaxer like him.
Well, no, I don't believe him. Not at face value. That's why what I wrote included things like "The conspiracy guys think..." and "Halbig APPARENTLY found...". I found several different sources for the fact that the lawsuit was dropped, but only one source on the rest, so I treated it as hearsay.

I read that article in full, and I have to say, I don't think I've ever read an article as obviously biased as that one. They used only one source for the entire article (Pozner himself), and the tone of the article is closer to whining than reporting. They'd say they debunked things, but provided no links of it (such as saying "he wanted to know why paramedics and EMTs weren't allowed to enter the school (they were)" - okay, sure, but where's the citation for me to check?). And what's the point of bringing up that Pozner's group called the deniers "conspiratards", except to propagate it?

It commits several journalistic sins openly. For instance, a statement like "Frustrated by their inability to rattle government officials, Hoaxers began attacking the families of victims" - how the fuck does he know when he doesn't appear to have talked to a single one of them for this article? Rather than objectively reporting facts, he's narrating a story and literally investing things out of thin air. And like, what the fuck am I supposed to make out of this paragraph:

After Halbig learned of the complaint, he tried calling Pozner several times, leaving messages on his voicemail. He sounded alarmed, and said it was "urgent" that they speak. Halbig denies reaching out, but Pozner saved the voicemails and phone records from that period. I asked Halbig about the discrepancy. "That's very strange," he told me. "Never called him in my life."
The author starts by narrating events he wasn't present for, then has a he-said-she-said situation in which one side says they have proof - but the author never states that they saw this proof, nor provides even the most remote evidence from it. We're just supposed to take it on faith that this proof exists and that Halbig's denial is a lie. Maybe it is, but I have a sneaky suspicion that this "reporter" never verified these voicemails or phone record, or ever saw them in person. If he had, he'd have much more damning things to say here. As it is, Halbig's denial is the only thing that is actually sourced! What kind of shitty reporter does that?

And then Pozner's team releases a 100 page deep dive into Halbig's history... how is that not exactly what Halbig is being accused of? Did nobody notice the hypocrisy here? You can't have an article about how Pozner is an innocent victim in all this, then brag about him being just as big an asshole as the guy you are complaining about. And it's embarrassing. I took the liberty of checking out this ebook, and the first page has the following:

Prologue: They call him "The Kraut"

August 10th, 1946: Wolfgang Walter Halbig is born, somewhere in Germany
Real fucking reporting there. The rest of it is some of the most pathetic bullshit I've ever seen. I mean, I get what they are going for. They want to turn the tables on Halbig. To go through his life with a fine tooth comb and accuse him of things. But you end up with some really dumb shit, like accusing him of being a draft dodger because he couldn't enroll in Florida State University without a draft card - which he didn't have because he didn't speak very good English on account of being born... wait for it... somewhere in Germany.

I tracked down the Orlando Sentinel article on the missing gun (would've been easier if they linked it). The Vice article makes it sound like Halbig lost his side arm due to negligence at a school where he worked, but his house was burglarized and several boxes of his things were stolen (including apparently multiple firearms, including a rifle, and ammunition). His sheepish "gosh, I'm the director of security" was taken out of context. Of all the things stolen from his house, he was most worried that the firearms would be used to hurt someone - which seems like a fairly reasonable position to take, all things considering.

The Vice article tries to use that "gosh" quote as a wham line to close the article with a mic drop, but it mischaracterized everything about the event over the course of one sentence. It would be more accurate to describe the thief as a teen or high school student, rather than simply as a student (which implies a student relationship to Halbig rather than an indication of his age - Halbig never met the kid). He had a lot of things stolen from him, not just his gun. And he didn't express embarrassment, he expressed concern. And this would've been really easy to see if Vice had bothered to cite its sources, which it didn't.

And because of this, it is obvious that this Vice article is explicitly a character assassination rather than a piece of journalism. It is biased as anything I've ever seen, it doesn't quote its sources, it misrepresents its sources in egregious ways, and the author even insults the people he disagrees with in the article.

Look, I'm open to the possibility that Halbig is a fraud, or at least as misguided as any other "conspiratard", but this Vice article was the biggest bunch of bullshit I've seen in a long time. The fact that you read this article and thought it was a convincing takedown of Halbig says a lot about the care you put into checking and confirming things before repeating them uncritically on the internet.
 

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,038
466
430
Reading, Berkshire
#70
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.
No amount of money would bring back their children so I highly doubt they care. This is a really terrible anti-deplatforming argument lol
 
May 17, 2012
5,085
832
455
Canada
#71
No amount of money would bring back their children so I highly doubt they care. This is a really terrible anti-deplatforming argument lol
That is a nice sentiment but we live in reality and I actually read the OP. Why would they need internal marketing information and financial documents if they weren't going after money? That is all this ruling is for, to grant discovery requests. It seems like they do care, someone cares, or at least some lawyer cares about money. No amount of anything is going to bring these kids back. If they are going through this process they should be getting a bigger pay out for having to relive this nightmare in a court of law but good ole activism cut that a bit shorter. It is a perfectly good argument for not deplatforming someone, as you are potentially hurting the victims from going through the court processes that have existed and worked for hundreds of years, you are just too ideologically corrupt to see it. Personally I would get more satisfaction out of victims getting more money even with the knowledge that it wont replace the loved ones lost than whatever mob rule satisfaction is derived from deplatforming someone.
 

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,038
466
430
Reading, Berkshire
#72
That is a nice sentiment but we live in reality and I actually read the OP. Why would they need internal marketing information and financial documents if they weren't going after money? That is all this ruling is for, to grant discovery requests. It seems like they do care, someone cares, or at least some lawyer cares about money. No amount of anything is going to bring these kids back. If they are going through this process they should be getting a bigger pay out for having to relive this nightmare in a court of law but good ole activism cut that a bit shorter. It is a perfectly good argument for not deplatforming someone, as you are potentially hurting the victims from going through the court processes that have existed and worked for hundreds of years, you are just too ideologically corrupt to see it. Personally I would get more satisfaction out of victims getting more money even with the knowledge that it wont replace the loved ones lost than whatever mob rule satisfaction is derived from deplatforming someone.
Looking at financial documents is standard procedure. And I didn't say they weren't going after money, but rather the amount they can get doesn't change the fact their kids are gone and is a terrible argument against deplatforming. You're essentially saying "deplatforming is bad because you might not get as much if you sue" like...that's just so silly mate.
 
Nov 5, 2016
3,597
2,276
270
I don't care where (just far)
#73
Alex Jones is an interesting character to me.

He’s deliberately a hysterical maniac, for profit.

It’s odd when Joe Rogan talks about changing out with Alex in the old days, when he was normal (apparently) running around Austin smoking weed.

With guys like Jones I can’t tell if they just got lost in their gimmick or in their mind are they playing everyone?
 
Feb 22, 2018
1,088
1,032
300
#75
@JareBear Jones is clearly a persona. His roleplay is designed to engage in infotainment and generate an income. It's his knack and he takes full advantage of it. In the process he has offended many snowflakes.

I hope more Alex Jones-esque entertainers show up to push back against the growing police state.
 
Jan 14, 2015
2,256
135
320
Connecticut
#76
@JareBear Jones is clearly a persona. His roleplay is designed to engage in infotainment and generate an income. It's his knack and he takes full advantage of it. In the process he has offended many snowflakes.

I hope more Alex Jones-esque entertainers show up to push back against the growing police state.
Curious if that "own the libs" mentality holds up when the next pizza gunman actually manages to hit and kill someone.
 
Jan 12, 2008
2,050
120
850
#77
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.
To me this is a definite defamation case. He was spreading lies about people which caused hardship and/or harm to them. I don't see why profit has to be in the picture at all. To me this is libel and slander of the worst sort.
 
Dec 3, 2018
850
1,293
215
#78
To me this is a definite defamation case. He was spreading lies about people which caused hardship and/or harm to them. I don't see why profit has to be in the picture at all. To me this is libel and slander of the worst sort.
Defamation of public figures requires the defamation to be intentionally false, or done with “actual malice”. They became public figures when they started giving interviews about gun control, and it would be difficult to show that Jones defamed them knowing it was lies, given the nature of what else InfoWars reports on. I’m certain he believed enough of the story.
 
Jan 12, 2008
2,050
120
850
#79
Defamation of public figures requires the defamation to be intentionally false, or done with “actual malice”. They became public figures when they started giving interviews about gun control, and it would be difficult to show that Jones defamed them knowing it was lies, given the nature of what else InfoWars reports on. I’m certain he believed enough of the story.
I don't think whether or not he believed it to be true or not matters. As I understand it, the law only concerns itself about if what was stated was true or not, irrespective if Jones believed what he was saying or not. That is not hard to prove, nor should it be hard to prove that making such statements is negligence on Jones' part, as I'm sure there is plenty of evidence of the death threats and harassment the families received. But I am not a lawyer, I am sure there is one on the forum who could enlighten us all a bit more on this.
 
Dec 3, 2018
850
1,293
215
#82
I don't think whether or not he believed it to be true or not matters. As I understand it, the law only concerns itself about if what was stated was true or not, irrespective if Jones believed what he was saying or not. That is not hard to prove, nor should it be hard to prove that making such statements is negligence on Jones' part, as I'm sure there is plenty of evidence of the death threats and harassment the families received. But I am not a lawyer, I am sure there is one on the forum who could enlighten us all a bit more on this.
There's two things at work here. First, public figures have weaker protection than private figures. To defame a public figure, you must prove that it was done with "actual malice" (that's the legal term). This is because public figures more predominantly figure into our day to day speech, there's a lot of unsubstantiated rumors going around, and curbing defamation of the public figure would involve a chilling effect on public discourse. For instance, what would politics look like if they could sue everybody online for saying nasty things about politicians? Did you ever wonder why Hannibal Burress wasn't sued by Cosby when he publicly said that Cosby was a rapist? It is because defamation of public figures is almost impossible to prosecute.

Second, the death threats and harassment are not Jones' fault. We absolutely can not have public speakers responsible for the indirect actions of the listener. For instance, should Donald Trump be held legally liable when one of his voters physically attacks a Mexican? Trump's message may have influenced the views of that person, but the responsibility of his actions based on those views is his own. Similarly, if Hillary called a bunch of people "deplorables", and some nutjob decided to start punching Republicans, is that Hillary's fault, legally? That's why there is an "imminent lawless action" requirement for what is legally called "incitement". If it isn't imminent, it isn't incitement.

Imagine wanting to die on a hill defending Alex fucking Jones. Some of y'all... Smh.
I'm defending the First Amendment. When I defend Alex Jones, I'm also defending Hillary Clinton, Hannibal Burress, Dave Chappelle, and a whole host of people who say unpopular things about other people - including you. Yes, despite the fact that you don't appreciate it, or deserve it (your last two dozen posts have more drive-bys than Chicago), I'm putting the legwork in to defend you too. You're welcome.
 
Jan 12, 2008
2,050
120
850
#83
There's two things at work here. First, public figures have weaker protection than private figures. To defame a public figure, you must prove that it was done with "actual malice" (that's the legal term). This is because public figures more predominantly figure into our day to day speech, there's a lot of unsubstantiated rumors going around, and curbing defamation of the public figure would involve a chilling effect on public discourse. For instance, what would politics look like if they could sue everybody online for saying nasty things about politicians? Did you ever wonder why Hannibal Burress wasn't sued by Cosby when he publicly said that Cosby was a rapist? It is because defamation of public figures is almost impossible to prosecute.

Second, the death threats and harassment are not Jones' fault. We absolutely can not have public speakers responsible for the indirect actions of the listener. For instance, should Donald Trump be held legally liable when one of his voters physically attacks a Mexican? Trump's message may have influenced the views of that person, but the responsibility of his actions based on those views is his own. Similarly, if Hillary called a bunch of people "deplorables", and some nutjob decided to start punching Republicans, is that Hillary's fault, legally? That's why there is an "imminent lawless action" requirement for what is legally called "incitement". If it isn't imminent, it isn't incitement.


I'm defending the First Amendment. When I defend Alex Jones, I'm also defending Hillary Clinton, Hannibal Burress, Dave Chappelle, and a whole host of people who say unpopular things about other people - including you. Yes, despite the fact that you don't appreciate it, or deserve it (your last two dozen posts have more drive-bys than Chicago), I'm putting the legwork in to defend you too. You're welcome.
Well I think Cosby didn't sue because it was actually true and probably thought it wisest to ignore :p.

Yeah I agree that in principle a person shouldn't be held accountable for action(s) committed by his/her listeners unless the person is inciting violence against another person or group.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
850
1,293
215
#85
Well I think Cosby didn't sue because it was actually true and probably thought it wisest to ignore :p.
While it probably was an attempt to ignore it and hope it went away, the fact is, Burress didn't have any firsthand knowledge of Cosby's rape attempts. He may have had secondhand accounts, but that would fall under hearsay. Under the standards used here to persecute Alex Jones, Burress was repeating unsubstantiated rumors that had the potential to greatly damage Cosby's reputation. You could argue that Burress being right changes things, but it wasn't proven until years later. At the time of him saying that, one could argue that what he did was defamation (though again, like Alex Jones, I don't think it was because he believed it).
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,915
406
1,320
35
USA
#86
While it probably was an attempt to ignore it and hope it went away, the fact is, Burress didn't have any firsthand knowledge of Cosby's rape attempts. He may have had secondhand accounts, but that would fall under hearsay. Under the standards used here to persecute Alex Jones, Burress was repeating unsubstantiated rumors that had the potential to greatly damage Cosby's reputation. You could argue that Burress being right changes things, but it wasn't proven until years later. At the time of him saying that, one could argue that what he did was defamation (though again, like Alex Jones, I don't think it was because he believed it).
Repeating libel/slander is still libel/slander. This is called the 'republication rule' in American law. Whether or not you can be liable for it depends on intent of malice, public status, etc., and gets complicated, but you can still be sued for doing so. This is precisely why Section 230 exists, to prevent Google, NeoGaf, et al. from being considered 'republications' of defamatory content repeated on their services. Thus Youtube (in theory, this could also get complicated) isn't responsible for whatever Jones is repeating, but Jones himself is.

Think about what Hammerfarce is trying to get you to believe, here. By his standard, no publication would ever be responsible for libel, because they'd just claim they were printing a 'rumor' they didn't originate, as they generally get their information from a 'source', anyway

also, this would not 'fall under hearsay'. Legally speaking, hearsay is a statement made by a third party entered into evidence by a witness as proof. Hearsay is a form of evidence, but in the case of defamation the statement itself is the tort. If it's been published, the fact that the statement existed is provable, and whether or not the content of the statement is hearsay is immaterial. Lies are still defamation, regardless of the source
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2018
1,088
1,032
300
#87
Curious if that "own the libs" mentality holds up when the next pizza gunman actually manages to hit and kill someone.
I see. Think of the lunatic children. Guilt by selective association. Let's go further then...let's ban certain films and games. After all some people act on them. No, better example yet; the entire leftist political and economic doctrine is based on reckless fantasy, hence why so many millions perished under attempts to implement such nonsense and continue to do so in places like North Korea, Venezuela, etc to this very day. An ideology at least as destructive as Nazism, yet more dangerous because it sneaks in under the guise of liberation and humanism.

In such a context, which do you consider more dangerous; fringe entertainers like Jones or the mass murdering, censorious politics of his most vocal opponents? Heck, his corporate owned rival and extreme leftist cenk (ironically bought by the Qatari government) leads an outfit called The young Turks, literally named after a group that spearheaded the Armenian Genocide. Why is he still on air? I'm not saying he shouldn't be, I support even such drivel being allowed to spout nonsense; but why the hypocrisy?

If Jones was engaged in hurtful slander and libel as defined by a third party court, he should pay a fine. But he should not be silenced, ever. He was. I don't so much support him as I never cared for his content, but I believe that as the Canary in the coal mine he should get special scrutiny so we can better halt this 'progress' into censorious leftist authoritarianism. Trust me its literally the same as right wing Fascism. There was little practical difference between Stalin and you know who.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
850
1,293
215
#88
Think about what Hammerfarce is trying to get you to believe, here.
I would've gone with Hammerfart. Maybe Hammerbarf. If you really wanted to go all out, maybe Summershart. But Hammerfarce? That's just weak. If you are going to go petty, might as well go big.

Repeating libel/slander is still libel/slander. This is called the 'republication rule' in American law.
Did you read your own link there? It completely supports what I've been saying:

For instance, if Paul is a public official or a public figure, Don is immune from liability unless he spoke knowing that the statement was false, or at least having "serious doubts as to the truth of" the allegation.
Sounds familiar.

[3.] The fair report (of government proceedings) privilege: Say a reporter is covering a trial, in which witnesses are making assertions that the reporter knows are false, or knows are likely false; or say a reporter is reporting on some official government report. The law has long recognized that such coverage must be immune from liability, under the so-called "fair report privilege," at least when the coverage is substantially accurate and evenhandedly summarizes the testimony. In many states, this is an absolute privilege, applicable even when the reporter knows that the statements within those proceedings are likely to be false.

The fair report privilege also generally extends beyond reports of court proceedings, to include reports of public meetings of government bodies, including legislative and executive bodies. In all of these cases, the very fact that something has been said—even if there's reason to believe it's false—is important for the public to understand what the government body is doing.
Since the Sandy Hook parents have literally been a part of drafting gun control law, of which their particular tragedy is an intertwined element of it, coverage of them would fall under the fair report privilege. See specifically: "In many states, this is an absolute privilege, applicable even when the reporter knows that the statements within those proceedings are likely to be false."

Some courts would hold that the newspaper would be protected in such a case under a First Amendment "neutral reportage" privilege, because the charges themselves were newsworthy even if they were false.
Even if these parents were not involved in government proceedings, I think they'd probably qualify for neutral reportage privilege, as described at this link, because the charges themselves are newsworthy, even if they are false - the relevance to the public being, of course, the involvement of their government in a cover up, which would be a newsworthy accusation under any circumstance. Whether it was true or not is irrelevant with regard to the legality of a reporter being able to report on it.
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
3,299
37
255
#89
There's two things at work here. First, public figures have weaker protection than private figures. To defame a public figure, you must prove that it was done with "actual malice" (that's the legal term). This is because public figures more predominantly figure into our day to day speech, there's a lot of unsubstantiated rumors going around, and curbing defamation of the public figure would involve a chilling effect on public discourse. For instance, what would politics look like if they could sue everybody online for saying nasty things about politicians? Did you ever wonder why Hannibal Burress wasn't sued by Cosby when he publicly said that Cosby was a rapist? It is because defamation of public figures is almost impossible to prosecute.

Second, the death threats and harassment are not Jones' fault. We absolutely can not have public speakers responsible for the indirect actions of the listener. For instance, should Donald Trump be held legally liable when one of his voters physically attacks a Mexican? Trump's message may have influenced the views of that person, but the responsibility of his actions based on those views is his own. Similarly, if Hillary called a bunch of people "deplorables", and some nutjob decided to start punching Republicans, is that Hillary's fault, legally? That's why there is an "imminent lawless action" requirement for what is legally called "incitement". If it isn't imminent, it isn't incitement.


I'm defending the First Amendment. When I defend Alex Jones, I'm also defending Hillary Clinton, Hannibal Burress, Dave Chappelle, and a whole host of people who say unpopular things about other people - including you. Yes, despite the fact that you don't appreciate it, or deserve it (your last two dozen posts have more drive-bys than Chicago), I'm putting the legwork in to defend you too. You're welcome.
Nah, I'm good. You don't have to defend me with your trash.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,915
406
1,320
35
USA
#90
I would've gone with Hammerfart. Maybe Hammerbarf. If you really wanted to go all out, maybe Summershart. But Hammerfarce? That's just weak. If you are going to go petty, might as well go big.
why? Hammerfart and Hammerbarf would indeed be petty, but a post where you pretend to know stuff about American law which you don't strikes me as 'an empty or patently ridiculous act, proceeding, or situation'. I thought you'd enjoy it; it's better than Lyin' Ted or Cocaine Mitch or Pocahontas, and certainly more meaningful than all the times people on here are called an 'NPC'

Did you read your own link there? It completely supports what I've been saying:
No, it does not support your comments about hearsay:
While it probably was an attempt to ignore it and hope it went away, the fact is, Burress didn't have any firsthand knowledge of Cosby's rape attempts. He may have had secondhand accounts, but that would fall under hearsay.
My point was that repeating hearsay is still defamation in American law, and remains so. I posted the first article I saw which mentioned the reproduction rule, but i'm glad you read it, as this does open up interesting avenues of discussion. None of the rest of the points you bring up change the fact that reporting rumors and hearsay falls under defamation.

Sounds familiar.

Since the Sandy Hook parents have literally been a part of drafting gun control law, of which their particular tragedy is an intertwined element of it, coverage of them would fall under the fair report privilege. See specifically: "In many states, this is an absolute privilege, applicable even when the reporter knows that the statements within those proceedings are likely to be false."
You are now referencing Fair Report Privilege, which specifically allows reporters to cover defamatory statements originating from government reports or proceedings without being liable (i.e. reporting on the lies told in a court case, by a politician, etc.). This would only be applicable to Jones' case if he were reporting on government officials/documents that were pushing the idea Sandy Hook is fake, i.e. government policy/officials originate the defamation

There are no statements about Sandy Hook being a cover-up in the legislation the Sandy Hook parents have advocated. Also, I suspect the Sandy Hook parents do not qualify as government officials, but even if they were, the Fair Report Privilege does not grant someone the ability to defame them in any way imaginable because they are government officials. Note that even 'Offhand remarks made by a government official in a private setting' wouldn't qualify. Fair Report Privilige specifically allows repeating the false statements that are part of their policy, not those lobbied against them... The Fair Report Privilege is purposefully narrow, what you are looking for (and you rightly identify this later) is the Neutral Report Privilege

Even if these parents were not involved in government proceedings, I think they'd probably qualify for neutral reportage privilege, as described at this link, because the charges themselves are newsworthy, even if they are false - the relevance to the public being, of course, the involvement of their government in a cover up, which would be a newsworthy accusation under any circumstance. Whether it was true or not is irrelevant with regard to the legality of a reporter being able to report on it.
The Neutral Report Privilage attempts to extend the coverage of Fair Report Privilege to cover squabbles of public interest, but in doing so blurs the line between reporting and defamation. Note per the source we are quoting:

"Nonetheless, a majority (though not an overwhelming majority) of courts that have considered the matter have rejected the neutral reportage privilege, because of the harm that false allegations—including ones passed along, rather than created in the first place, by the defendant—can cause to people's reputations."

This is not usually a valid defense of defamation, particularly for the likes of Jones:
This has to be considered very carefully by the courts as the purpose here is to distinguish those who originate and profit from some form of defamation vs. those who are evenhandedly making the public aware of such defamation.

Under no reasonable court will the guy who rips off his shirt and angrily gesticulates while riling up the masses about conspiracies be found to be 'accurately and disinterestedly' reporting. However, you are correct that this is a possible defense option for Jones. Whether or not it will work for him is not for us to decide.

Though I'd be surprised if they go this route, as it's certain to lose for him. Hence why his lawyers regularly fall back on treating Jones as satire, with defenses like 'Jones didn’t intend to speak factually—and, in fact, no reasonable person would expect that Jones spoke factually on his show.' and 'the entire context in which it was made discloses that the statements are mere opinions ‘masquerading as a fact.''. The 'lol, just trolling' defense that has been making the rounds as of late. A defense that is more likely to protect him, but ultimately drags down discourse in our country as a whole
 
Last edited: