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

[floivanus]

We could also differentiate "fan" with "listener". Some people like listening to crazy shit, regardless of whether they agree or not. Some just want to hear what the crazy bastard has to say. Alex Jones could be viewed as anti-comedy at this point, like an Andy Kaufman skit. But I guess *would* be concerned with someone who legit believes everything he says, and tries to act on it (like killing government agents for turning our frogs gay)

http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

Good meme, but not really the best “fale news dummy shill” angle to use, okay, the crap causes hermaphroditism and not homosexual behavior... but even the most stringent fact checkers would have to rate it based in truth IF it wasn’t said by AJ.

Reminds me of when he was on the JRE, joe fact checked every piece of BS he spouted; surprisingly everything seemed to check out

 

[Rockapotomuss]

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.

It’s not so easy for a person with an honestly held but mistaken belief in facts to differentiate between speciation and known fact. Especially when dealing with imperfect information such as soon after a big event has occurred. Everyone is guilty of overconfidence in the validity of their own version of facts.

 

[Ruprecht]

It’s not so easy for a person with an honestly held belief in facts to differentiate between speciation and belief. Especially when dealing with imperfect information such as soon after a big event has transpired.

Labelling it as a belief is the same as labelling it as speculation. If you say, "I believe..." and then ramble off some nonsense, then it's not a factual claim (or rather the only fact you're claiming is that you believe it, which is going to be nearly impossible to disprove short of confession).

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Labelling it as a belief is the same as labelling it as speculation. If you say, "I believe..." and then ramble off some nonsense, then it's not a factual claim (or rather the only fact you're claiming is that you believe it, which is going to be nearly impossible to disprove short of confession).

I didn’t communicate that well, I meant belief in the fact. I edited my last post to make it more clear.

 

[TheGreatA]

http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

Good meme, but not really the best “fale news dummy shill” angle to use, okay, the crap causes hermaphroditism and not homosexual behavior... but even the most stringent fact checkers would have to rate it based in truth IF it wasn’t said by AJ.

Reminds me of when he was on the JRE, joe fact checked every piece of BS he spouted; surprisingly everything seemed to check out

Alex's "gay frogs" rant was so brilliant on many levels. For years now, every critic of his has brought up the rant as an example of how nutty and paranoid he is.

The reality is that it was in fact one of his more truthful statements. And to be honest, I'm pretty sure that he calculates stuff like this. He doubles-down on the crazy whenever he actually has the facts on his side, while remaining more serious, deadpan and non-committal when he's speculating about stuff that's probably bullshit.

The result of it is that the media usually reports the stuff where he's got atleast a hint of truth on his side, while glossing over the possible bullshit, because it's not sensational enough to be reported.

Alex Jones is not so much a study on himself, because his type has always existed, especially in the American society, but more so a study on how everyone else reacts to him. Very few are capable of just taking his act, for what it is.

 

[Ruprecht]

I didn’t communicate that well, I meant belief in the fact. I edited my last post to make it more clear.

Most of what Jones does isn't going to be susceptible to a defamation claim, because he's talking about public figures and he's applying the standard CTer handbook.
Create a speculative narrative according to your world view by carefully selecting and interpreting facts, while ignoring simpler explanations and facts which would contradict your narrative.
Even when those "facts" actually turn out to be the usual confusion in reporting following a significant tragedy or chaotic event. There's no defamation claim to be made about pointing to inconsistencies in early media reports or making speculative claims about them.
He's potentially on the hook in this claim, because the Sandy Hook parents may not count as "public figures", because one of the Infowars "reporters" made a flat out false assertion about the parents (that they were lying about holding their son) and because the parents have a lot of definitive evidence about the harm that his false claims have caused them.
Even then, because of the US defamation laws, it's far from a sure victory (although resorting to a "Performance Artist" defence certainly looks bad for him).

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Most of what Jones does isn't going to be susceptible to a defamation claim, because he's talking about public figures and he's applying the standard CTer handbook.
Create a speculative narrative according to your world view by carefully selecting and interpreting facts, while ignoring simpler explanations and facts which would contradict your narrative.
Even when those "facts" actually turn out to be the usual confusion in reporting following a significant tragedy or chaotic event. There's no defamation claim to be made about pointing to inconsistencies in early media reports or making speculative claims about them.
He's potentially on the hook in this claim, because the Sandy Hook parents may not count as "public figures", because one of the Infowars "reporters" made a flat out false assertion about the parents (that they were lying about holding their son) and because the parents have a lot of definitive evidence about the harm that his false claims have caused them.
Even then, because of the US defamation laws, it's far from a sure victory (although resorting to a "Performance Artist" defence certainly looks bad for him).

I don’t know enough about sandy hook or jones’ take to comment on this specific case, but generally speaking the American laws that protect free speech and prevent many defamation claims is much better than the alternatives imo for the reasons I’ve stated and the many other reasons stated by John Stuart Mill.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don’t know enough about sandy hook or jones’ take to comment on this specific case, but generally speaking the American laws that protect free speech and prevent many defamation claims is much better than the alternatives imo for the reasons I’ve stated and the many other reasons stated by John Stuart Mill.

For all his ranting about British libel laws, even Mill placed restrictions on freedom of expression.

"opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act"

I would certainly say Jones' statements about the Sandy Hook parents fall foul of Mill's "harm" principle.

To the extent that they differ from the norms of developed nations, your laws certainly don't seem to be benefiting political discourse, public knowledge or the well being of your citizens.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

For all his ranting about British libel laws, even Mill placed restrictions on freedom of expression.

"opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act"

I would certainly say Jones' statements about the Sandy Hook parents fall foul of Mill's "harm" principle.

To the extent that they differ from the norms of developed nations, your laws certainly don't seem to be benefiting political discourse, public knowledge or the well being of your citizens.

Applying that quote as a harm principle to what I've seen of Alex Jones does not fall foul. That quote is ambiguous regarding whether the instigation be express or implied, but since he's talking about expression, I believe Mill was referring to express instigation, such as "burn down that building". Certainly Maxine Waters "if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore anywhere." pushes right up against that line.

If you interpret the harm principle to include anything implied then any political opponent that riles people up like both Jones or Waters are clearly over the line because you’re judging the speaker based on the potential actions of the retarded listeners rather than on the express content of what the speaker said. That’s not a good line to draw.

I don't see by what measure or how you reach the conclusion that liberal free speech rules are not benefiting political discourse, public knowledge, or citizen well-being.

 

[SMillard]

Surely this has to be the final nail in the coffin of his career?

He has basically admitted he is a giant joke played on the stupid.

I can't be as optimistic, Alex Jones has made a game out of this kind of stuff. Remember this is the guy that likes to ridicule the "elite" with their rolex watches, fancy clothes and flashy jewelry, then when he was called out for wearing a rolex watch, fancy clothes and fancy jewelry his defense to his followers was "to show them what these people look like so they wouldn't be fooled" basically he used the ole "I only look at tranny pron because I want to make sure I don't get fooled by some tranny trying to hit on me" defense.

Almost reminds me of the strategy of jihadists that claim they shave their beards, get haircuts, hit the nightclubs, bang bar sloots and drink alcohol........... you know just so they fit in with the evil doers and blend into their environment. Jones will claim it was all part of his war on the establishment because who is a better "undercover agent for truth" than the person that pretends to be a lying fool, or something along those lines.
Regardless, even if Jones falls off the map, now they have Q anon, because who better to get the truth from than an anonymous person posting on sub forums who claims to be a "deep state operative" who spews conspiracies so extreme and outlandish that you don't even need proof or evidence to support the claims. Or to put it more bluntly, the tin foil nut jobs will just keep doubling down.

 

[JosephDredd]

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

I admit I have no idea what this babble means.

 

[Ruprecht]

Applying that quote as a harm principle to what I've seen of Alex Jones does not fall foul. That quote is ambiguous regarding whether the instigation be express or implied, but since he's talking about expression, I believe Mill was referring to express instigation, such as "burn down that building". Certainly Maxine Waters "if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore anywhere." pushes right up against that line.

If you interpret the harm principle to include anything implied then any political opponent that riles people up like both Jones or Waters are clearly over the line because you’re judging the speaker based on the potential actions of the retarded listeners rather than on the express content of what the speaker said. That’s not a good line to draw.

I don't see by what measure or how you reach the conclusion that liberal free speech rules are not benefiting political discourse, public knowledge, or citizen well-being.

By the measure of the current state of your political discourse, the role of misinformation and character defamation and the comparison to every other developed nation.

In contrast to the libel laws of Mill's time, a decision against Jones in this case would be a permissive take on the Harm Principle. Especially given the clear link between the harassment the Sandy Hook parents received and Jones' role in perpetuating it. Not a theoretical impact (has anyone acted on Maxine Water's comments in an illegal manner?), explicitly identified cases of the harm it caused (constant harassment and threats from individuals repeating Jones' claims).
Mill's protestations about how provocative expression in the case of libel could be justified if it relayed truth about the current State government (ie where action against the government was justified) would actually apply to Waters' case anyway, but certainly not Jones' slander against the parents.
Restricting Mill's harm principle beyond that would be a strange interpretation, given Mill's explicit interpretation of harm went far enough to include a "violation of good manners".

“Again, there are many acts which, being directly injurious only to the agents themselves, ought not to be legally interdicted, but which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners and, coming thus within the category of offenses against others, may rightly be prohibited.”

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Even though this deserves its own thread, I think one Alex Jones thread is more than enough.

3 separate tech companies ban Alex Jones and infowars.

Facebook......Apple........youtube.

Kind of scary when these three huge companies orchestrated a coordinated ban.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/06/technology/facebook-infowars-alex-jones/index.html


I'm sure the normal liberals will defend this decision but much like 'outrage mob' be careful what you defend. Everything runs in a cycle

 

[JosephDredd]

Even though this deserves its own thread, I think one Alex Jones thread is more than enough.

3 separate tech companies ban Alex Jones and infowars.

Facebook......Apple........youtube.

Kind of scary when these three huge companies orchestrated a coordinated ban.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/06/technology/facebook-infowars-alex-jones/index.html


I'm sure the normal liberals will defend this decision but much like 'outrage mob' be careful what you defend. Everything runs in a cycle

Why are right-wingers so in love with this bullshit talking point? If anyone on the left was spreading malicious lies and hurting people the way Jones is, liberals would support their shut down as well.

There's nothing scary or evil about this. This is about people choosing to side with their conscience to shut down a malicious person doing real damage. In the case of your links, they do that by not enabling. In the case of the thread subject, they do that by applying the law as it has intended to be applied for hundreds of years. He's not being victimized by insidious transformation of the law.

If you want to support that person, fine, that's on you, but don't turn into whiny little bitches distorting the reality of the situation because people are conscientious objectors to your bullshit.

You all need to pull your heads out of your asses. People are not subjugating popular media or the law to grind you in the gears of society: you are dumb shits distorting reality to believe that you're being victimized by a vast, diabolical power because you can no longer recognize what's real.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Why are right-wingers so in love with this bullshit talking point? If anyone on the left was spreading malicious lies and hurting people the way Jones is, liberals would support their shut down as well.

There's nothing scary or evil about this. This is about people choosing to side with their conscience to shut down a malicious person doing real damage. In the case of your links, they do that by not enabling. In the case of the thread subject, they do that by applying the law as it has intended to be applied for hundreds of years. He's not being victimized by insidious transformation of the law.

If you want to support that person, fine, that's on you, but don't turn into whiny little bitches distorting the reality of the situation because people are conscientious objectors to your bullshit.

You all need to pull your heads out of your asses. People are not subjugating popular media or the law to grind you in the gears of society: you are dumb shits distorting reality to believe that you're being victimized by a vast, diabolical power because you can no longer recognize what's real.

Like I said..... the normal liberals.

Malicious lies? Cry me a River.

Also the main point of my comment (that you were too angry to have realized) was that three separate tech companies together purged him.

Not like one company one week and another company the next week and another one in the week...... All the same day.

Again I am glad you are going to defend their stance. I wouldn't expect anything less from 'you'

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I admit I have no idea what this babble means.

It means you're invested in a childish insult as if it accomplishes anything. Do you intentionally avoid thinking?

 

[Rockapotomuss]

By the measure of the current state of your political discourse, the role of misinformation and character defamation and the comparison to every other developed nation.

In contrast to the libel laws of Mill's time, a decision against Jones in this case would be a permissive take on the Harm Principle. Especially given the clear link between the harassment the Sandy Hook parents received and Jones' role in perpetuating it. Not a theoretical impact (has anyone acted on Maxine Water's comments in an illegal manner?), explicitly identified cases of the harm it caused (constant harassment and threats from individuals repeating Jones' claims).
Mill's protestations about how provocative expression in the case of libel could be justified if it relayed truth about the current State government (ie where action against the government was justified) would actually apply to Waters' case anyway, but certainly not Jones' slander against the parents.
Restricting Mill's harm principle beyond that would be a strange interpretation, given Mill's explicit interpretation of harm went far enough to include a "violation of good manners".

“Again, there are many acts which, being directly injurious only to the agents themselves, ought not to be legally interdicted, but which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners and, coming thus within the category of offenses against others, may rightly be prohibited.”

The public discourse, such as the one we’re having, has never been better. Free speech on the internet may be the greatest hope humanity has, we’re still in very early days.

Waters comments went beyond calling for action against the state and called for action against individuals. Whether anyone has acted on it yet is still an open question. The key difference here is Jones did not (to my knowledge) expressly call for anyone to harass Sandy Hook parents whereas Waters did expressly call for harassment against individuals. If you judge this speech based on the consequence of listeners rather than the content of what was spoken, you leave both sides open for political sabotage since you create an incentive for action to follow your enemey’s words. A foreign actor, such as Russia, could easily manipulate the response in such a way as to make either speaker culpable. If they don’t like waters, they start pumping her call to action and harasssing cabinet members, if they don’t like jones, they start pumping his call and harassing parents. That’s why you can’t give the listeners the power to control the judgment of the speaker.

 

[JosephDredd]

Like I said..... the normal liberals.

Malicious lies? Cry me a River.

Also the main point of my comment (that you were too angry to have realized) was that three separate tech companies together purged him.

Not like one company one week and another company the next week and another one in the week...... All the same day.

Again I am glad you are going to defend their stance. I wouldn't expect anything less from 'you'

It doesn't matter how many or in which day. Only a moron would see something insidious in it instead of seeing them blocking a user who was causing damage.

I would defend their stance if a liberal was spewing the same shit and got blocked.

 

[JosephDredd]

It means you're invested in a childish insult as if it accomplishes anything. Do you intentionally avoid thinking?

Tell me more about your "thoughts" on Alex Jones. Let's see if you even know what thinking is. I'd also like to hear why you "think" you deserve to be treated with anything more dignified than childish insults when you post the brainless shit that you do.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Tell me more about your "thoughts" on Alex Jones. Let's see if you even know what thinking is. I'd also like to hear why you "think" you deserve to be treated with anything more dignified than childish insults when you post the brainless shit that you do.

Hilarious that you think anyone would try to prove themselves to you. Talk about a deluded sense of self.