Alex Jones' defense attorneys in bold legal gambit: only a moron would believe Jones

[JosephDredd]

Jones disgusts me but this has to turn on whether he directly and specifically slandered Sandy Hook parents or directly incited his audience to violence/harassment. Being an inflammatory asshole playing to nutcases paranoia is not quite good enough. He's a hurtful piece of shit for his denialism and conspiracy mongering, but is his speech actually illegal? I'm not so sure. If we are going to sanction people for bad speech then the lines need to be bright as day and crystal clear, and universal. We can't allow a situation where the decision to shut people down depends on who has the power. It has to be be based on solid and universal principles that respect liberty while punishing behavior that is universally bad.

lots of ignorant people repeating these talking points in this thread.

Jones is not being shut down. He's being sued for defamation, a process that has existed in America for hundreds of years as a way to bring restitution to parties injured by lies. The suit might win or it might fail: defamation is very hard to prove.

 

[Phisher]

Jones disgusts me but this has to turn on whether he directly and specifically slandered Sandy Hook parents or directly incited his audience to violence/harassment. Being an inflammatory asshole playing to nutcases paranoia is not quite good enough. He's a hurtful piece of shit for his denialism and conspiracy mongering, but is his speech actually illegal? I'm not so sure. If we are going to sanction people for bad speech then the lines need to be bright as day and crystal clear, and universal. We can't allow a situation where the decision to shut people down depends on who has the power. It has to be be based on solid and universal principles that respect liberty while punishing behavior that is universally bad.

They're suing for defamation. The standard is proving that a person has made statements that he knew to be false with the intent of injuring the other party. Proving willful dishonesty isn't exactly difficult given Jones's previous behavior. He's openly admitted in numerous outlets that he doesn't believe most of what he says and is playing a character. His attorneys explicitly made this argument in court filings during his custody battle with his ex-wife.


At this point, it wouldn't be too unreasonable for a prosecutor to bring a criminal case for incitement against him. There are numerous instances of his lunatic fanbase issuing threats and confronting the targets of his conspiracy theories. Even if his actions don't warrant a criminal conviction, it would be unreasonable for him to claim that he doesn't know what the result will be when he spreads misinformation about private citizens.


Frankly, he's luckily that the standard for defamation of public figures is so high in the US. In Canada or Europe, this kind of shit would have gotten him sued into oblivion a long time ago:

 

[Fawlty]

They're suing for defamation. The standard is proving that a person has made statements that he knew to be false with the intent of injuring the other party. Proving willful dishonesty isn't exactly difficult given Jones's previous behavior. He's openly admitted in numerous outlets that he doesn't believe most of what he says and is playing a character. His attorneys explicitly made this argument in court filings during his custody battle with his ex-wife.


At this point, it wouldn't be too unreasonable for a prosecutor to bring a criminal case for incitement against him. There are numerous instances of his lunatic fanbase issuing threats and confronting the targets of his conspiracy theories. Even if his actions don't warrant a criminal conviction, it would be unreasonable for him to claim that he doesn't know what the result will be when he spreads misinformation about private citizens.


Frankly, he's luckily that the standard for defamation of public figures is so high in the US. In Canada or Europe, this kind of shit would have gotten him sued into oblivion a long time ago:

Isn't it the reckless disregard of the truth itself that is the malice? You don't have to intend to cause harm to be guilty of defamation, as far as I know, though obviously that would help a case.

 

[Phisher]

Isn't it the reckless disregard of the truth itself that is the malice? You don't have to intend to cause harm to be guilty of defamation, as far as I know, though obviously that would help a case.

The standard in US law is incredibly high compared to other common law countries.

The plaintiff has to prove actual malice separate from the mere publication or broadcast of a falsehood. The plaintiff also has to demonstrate that the statements were the proximate cause of material harm that has been suffered.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/

Here's a comparison between the standard in the US and the one here in Canada.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/chart-differences-between-united-states-and-canadian-defamation-law/

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Must... defend... shit tier fake news... like Alex.... Jones...

 

[Fawlty]

The standard in US law is incredibly high compared to other common law countries.

The plaintiff has to prove actual malice separate from the mere publication or broadcast of a falsehood. The plaintiff also has to demonstrate that the statements were the proximate cause of material harm that has been suffered.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/

Here's a comparison between the standard in the US and the one here in Canada.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/chart-differences-between-united-states-and-canadian-defamation-law/

I get you, but what I mean is that the proof of intent to harm is inherent to the disregarding of truth, so that there doesn't need to be knowledge of falsehood + intent to harm + harm - it just needs to be proven that there was knowledge of falsehood + harm, and the intent to harm is usually implied.

In the end I think Jones will skate on this one like Hustler did on the Falwell case, anyway. I really hope he gets pounded though.

 

[RetiredSlave]

People take that dude seriously? I always thought it was intended as entertainment.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Then Tucker, then Laura Ingraham, then Judge Jeanine!

He says that like Hannity isn't just as big a liar. The only difference is he isn't a CTist like Jones since he's on a "news" channel. He caters to a more intelligent crowd but his hypocrisy is just the same.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Thank-you.

Now what part of that speech is not protected in America?

In your view what part of that speech was scrupulous or moral?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I despise Jones. He is disgusting. That is not the point if we are talking about speech that is not protected because of lies. Just look at the implications and Iraq is just one example. For decades MSM in America has lied us through more shit than you would like to believe. And more shit, frankly, than we are even allowed to discuss here.

Other lies are not the point. IW's lies are the point and if they caused harm. Whether our libel laws are too strict is it's own debate but if they are found guilty it will just highlight how despicably he's acted.

 

[UL]

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politi...-argue-no-reasonable-person-believe-says/amp/



So, noted POS Alex Jones is forced to be somewhat truthful in court. In related news...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/repor...in-court-costs-from-sandy-hook-victims-family


These days, there are a lot fewer dipshits in the WR who sing his praises, but there are probably still quite a few who are just scared to let us know how stupid they are.

I hope Jones gets completely taken apart by these lawsuits.

ouch

 

[Ruprecht]

Isn't it the reckless disregard of the truth itself that is the malice? You don't have to intend to cause harm to be guilty of defamation, as far as I know, though obviously that would help a case.

It depends on whether the claimainants are considered, "Public Figures" apparently.
If not, they don't even need to prove malice.

 

[91 seconds]

And only a bigger moron thinks he used to be a comedian who faked his death. I learned never to point out the obvious to people not looking for truth. I had so many messages I was a bot, paid shill etc..for pointing out the two guys were alive at the same time, two totally different voices and one shaved off about 2 inches in height.

These crackpots are worse than going into a flat earth vid and trying to convince those guys it's not true but the Jones/Hicks thing even made less sense...like okay, what was the point in this million dollar surgery for Bill to become Alex? I eventually got put on ignore. When you can't answer somebody, just delete their message lol

 

[Deleted member 196663]

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politi...-argue-no-reasonable-person-believe-says/amp/



So, noted POS Alex Jones is forced to be somewhat truthful in court. In related news...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/repor...in-court-costs-from-sandy-hook-victims-family


These days, there are a lot fewer dipshits in the WR who sing his praises, but there are probably still quite a few who are just scared to let us know how stupid they are.

I hope Jones gets completely taken apart by these lawsuits.

Calling a guy a piece of shit and then pretending to be the impartial informant makes you look extremely naive. This is not how you convince people. You just come across as a bitter whiner.

 

[JosephDredd]

Calling a guy a piece of shit and then pretending to be the impartial informant makes you look extremely naive. This is not how you convince people. You just come across as a bitter whiner.

Only morons need to be convinced that Alex Jones is a piece of shit. Sorry I'm failing to penetrate your deliberately impenetrable ignorance in the fashion that you would prefer. I'll try harder next time.

 

[Grenz]

Jones disgusts me but this has to turn on whether he directly and specifically slandered Sandy Hook parents or directly incited his audience to violence/harassment. Being an inflammatory asshole playing to nutcases paranoia is not quite good enough. He's a hurtful piece of shit for his denialism and conspiracy mongering, but is his speech actually illegal? I'm not so sure. If we are going to sanction people for bad speech then the lines need to be bright as day and crystal clear, and universal. We can't allow a situation where the decision to shut people down depends on who has the power. It has to be be based on solid and universal principles that respect liberty while punishing behavior that is universally bad.

You can't just go around telling blatant lies with either direct intent to cause harm, or even with knowledge that what you're stating may cause harm, directly or indirectly caused. E.g. Pepsi can't simply go ahead and make a commercial claiming that Coca Cola puts drugs in their drinks that cause fetal deformities. That's obviously slander.

Same thing here, Jones can't go around peddling outrageous claims like the Sandy Hook shooting was a farce while failing to present the extraordinary evidence it would take to validate that kind of outrageous claim.

Freedom of speech applies to the exchange of philosophical ideas - and it obviously extends far beyond that - but making extraordinary statements that have a real possibility of causing harm without providing the necessary evidence isn't covered under this right, and it shouldn't be.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Only morons need to be convinced that Alex Jones is a piece of shit. Sorry I'm failing to penetrate your deliberately impenetrable ignorance in the fashion that you would prefer. I'll try harder next time.

Saying Alex Jones is a piece of shit is not saying anything. But you’re too dumb to realize that.

 

[Cid]

If it weren't for sensationalism selling we wouldnt even have guys like him.

Why cant we just have honest media that just gives us the info?

Is that so bad? Are we too stupid for that?

You don't want the honest answer to that question.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Even if jones is wrong about 95% of his conspiracy theories, silencing him will have a chilling effect on the 5% or whatever number where he’s right. It’s important to have someone willing to go there because when a conspiracy is true, such as golf of tulkin, bay of pigs etc, it’s good that people know. If you silence jones, you also chill the more sincere investigators. Free speech is one of those things you just have to let fly.

 

[Ruprecht]

Even if jones is wrong about 95% of his conspiracy theories, silencing him will have a chilling effect on the 5% or whatever number where he’s right. It’s important to have someone willing to go there because when a conspiracy is true, such as golf of tulkin, bay of pigs etc, it’s good that people know. If you silence jones, you also chill the more sincere investigators. Free speech is one of those things you just have to let fly.

None of the Government actions you mention (Tonkin, not Tulkin) were exposed by anyone remotely like Jones.
Telling the truth is always a defence against defamation, and in the US public figures need to prove malice even when the claims are untrue.
There isn't a single topic Jones has ever touched on which hasn't been dealt with better elsewhere by people that don't stir up mobs of crazies to attack the victims of mass shootings.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

None of the Government actions you mention (Tonkin, not Tulkin) were exposed by anyone remotely like Jones.
Telling the truth is always a defence against defamation, and in the US public figures need to prove malice even when the claims are untrue.
There isn't a single topic Jones has ever touched on which hasn't been dealt with better elsewhere by people that don't stir up mobs of crazies to attack the victims of mass shootings.

I realize that, but Jones is the canary in the coal mine. So long as he can say crazy shit, Eddie bravo can say crazy shit, and so long as Eddie bravo can say crazy shit the next guy can too and on and on until you get left investigative journalism. If you silence jones you push the line backward and it chills the next level up.

 

[Ruprecht]

I realize that, but Jones is the canary in the coal mine. So long as he can say crazy shit, Eddie bravo can say crazy shit, and so kk f as Eddie bravo can say crazy shit the next guy can too and on and on until you get left investigative journalism.

Investigative journalists, and even those purely writing speculative opinion, have all the defences they've ever had. Don't make factual assertions which aren't true, and you're always OK.
It should be noted that defamation cases are much easier to win nearly everywhere else in the developed world, and we still have terrible tabloids and gutter press as well as investigative journalism.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Investigative journalists, and even those purely writing speculative opinion, have all the defences they've ever had. Don't make factual assertions which aren't true, and you're always OK.
It should be noted that defamation cases are much easier to win nearly everywhere else in the developed world, and we still have terrible tabloids and gutter press as well as investigative journalism.

It’s not so easy to never make factual assertions that aren’t true when you’re dealing with many levels of assumptions. In most of European history, anything that denied Christ was untrue. People are going to be wrong all the time, and free speech is necessary to sort out the shot from the truth. If you silence those who are wrong you end up with nothing relative to confirm what’s true.

 

[Ruprecht]

It’s not so easy to never make factual assertions that aren’t true when you’re dealing with many levels of assumptions. In most of European history, anything that denied Christ was untrue. People are going to be wrong all the time, and free speech is necessary to sort out the shot from the truth. If you silence those who are wrong you end up with nothing relative to confirm what’s true.

It's pretty easy. Most of world has managed it for hundreds of years. If you have no proof, explicitly label it as speculation or don't print it. The biggest difference of note in the US, is that your media can get away with absolutely fabricated character assassinations of public figures without having to worry about legal consequences. Proving malice is nigh on impossible.
Over here, proving damages is the most difficult part. Even in the case I linked to above, she lost the appeal over the amount and had to repay 90% of it.