Alex Jones found guilty in all 4 defamation cases (Sandy Hook)

[RaymondG]

You are exercising your freedom by posting this, you know.

He mean freedom to speak opinions and what we honestly believe with impunity.

One should not be punished for smelling smoke and yelling fire.....even if it turns out that there was no fire.......unless it is proven that the yeller knew there was no fire and only wanted to cause harm.

 

[Whyayeman]

He mean freedom to speak opinions and what we honestly believe with impunity.

One should not be punished for smelling smoke and yelling fire.....even if it turns out that there was no fire.......unless it is proven that the yeller knew there was no fire and only wanted to cause harm.

The difference here is that there was no smoke. This was not an honest mistake.

Alex Jones made it all up.

 

[loveofourlord]

He mean freedom to speak opinions and what we honestly believe with impunity.

One should not be punished for smelling smoke and yelling fire.....even if it turns out that there was no fire.......unless it is proven that the yeller knew there was no fire and only wanted to cause harm.

Actually, if you smell smoke but no one else is reacting you have do diligence to make sure if there even is smoke. He treats himself like a reporter, if your going to say things that will get people killed or ruin their lives you have far more due diligence then to just repeat or possibly make up things. The people he lied about had their lives ruined by him.

This isn't smelling smoke and shouting fire.

it's Saying someone whose son/daughter died in a fire that it's fake, that the government set it up to take away matches, and sent people to harass them. It's not, "Just asking questions." when you destroy lives.

 

[RaymondG]

The difference here is that there was no smoke. This was not an honest mistake.

Alex Jones made it all up.

It is possible... However, if you listen to some of his rhetoric, he explains why he had his doubts and his beliefs on the subject. e.g. he states that he yelled fire, because he smelled the smoke.....he didnt just yell fire for no reason....according to him.

And because of his explanation, he was able to convince millions to start believing this as well....which led many to harass the families of the children who died. So he believed something, stated what he believed and stated the reasons why he believed it.....and many found his reasoning sound enough o believe.

And again, I do not agree with him at all. But one day I will proclaim Christ on a rooftop, and tell people why I believe what I believe. And because of their unbelief, I will be able to prove very little to them. When someone gets offended (like many do when claims are made that God heals the sick), and I will face the judge....I want it to be righteous persecution, and not the rewards/reaping related to myself trying to stymie the voice and opinions of others.

 

[cow451]

One should not be punished for smelling smoke and yelling fire.....even if it turns out that there was no fire.......unless it is proven that the yeller knew there was no fire and only wanted to cause harm.

Which is what Alex Jones and his ilk have done. Alex Jones has stated that he does not actually believe what he said, admitting he is a liar. Lying with malicious intent is not protected speech in the US.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The court steps in after someone is already offended, and by then, it is too late.

I was asking who decides what speech will cause material harm to another, and therefore, cannot be said?

And I answered -- when the civil court system rules against Alex Jones for saying something egregiously hurtful, that can be a useful lesson to everyone else not to do what he did.

Sure, it's too late... for him, but there's no reason you can't learn from his mistake.

 

[TLK Valentine]

He mean freedom to speak opinions and what we honestly believe with impunity.

One should not be punished for smelling smoke and yelling fire.....even if it turns out that there was no fire.......unless it is proven that the yeller knew there was no fire and only wanted to cause harm.

Alex Jones was given ample opportunity to explain that might have been the case -- but he didn't even bother to try.

Since he didn't care enough to present his own side of the story, the judge was left with only his victims' side... hence the default judgement against Jones.

 

[RaymondG]

Which is what Alex Jones and his ilk have done. Alex Jones has stated that he does not actually believe what he said, admitting he is a liar. Lying with malicious intent is not protected speech in the US.

I agree. If he admitted to lying for the sole purpose of causing harm, there is no justification......and this situation would not be a good example to use in discussions on the lost of the freedom to speak.

 

[RaymondG]

And I answered -- when the civil court system rules against Alex Jones for saying something egregiously hurtful, that can be a useful lesson to everyone else not to do what he did.

Sure, it's too late... for him, but there's no reason you can't learn from his mistake.

Yes He would be smart to learn from his mistakes......But how do we be wise by learning from his mistake?

It doesnt seem like a big lessen to say not to saying someone is alive after hear the news say that one died, and showed some of their funerals.

How do we also avoid similar situations in which we do not believe information that is given to us....

A question for the philosophers a guess.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes He would be smart to learn from his mistakes......But how do we be wise by learning from his mistake?

Learn from his failure. It just so happened that his failure was so epic, it's unlikely that anyone needed to learn anything they didn't already know.

It doesnt seem like a big lessen to say not to saying someone is alive after hear the news say that one died, and showed some of their funerals.

Because it's not -- It seems obvious that Alex Jones has precious little to teach anyone.

But in other (less cut-and-dried) cases, we can look at how the courts rule and get an idea of where "the line" is, and learn not to cross it.

How do we also avoid similar situations in which we do not believe information that is given to us....

Well, for starters, we don't go on the air and spout off asinine conspiracy theories about "Crisis Actors" after a school shooting...

Again, you would think that would be common sense, but then along comes the likes of Alex Jones...

 

[cow451]

I agree. If he admitted to lying for the sole purpose of causing harm, there is no justification......and this situation would not be a good example to use in discussions on the lost of the freedom to speak.

Agreed

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree. If he admitted to lying for the sole purpose of causing harm, there is no justification......and this situation would not be a good example to use in discussions on the lost of the freedom to speak.

Well, he didn't admit to anything, but on the flip side, he didn't deny anything...

He had his opportunity to give his side of the story, but instead chose not to. That made the judge's job a lot easier.

 

[RaymondG]

Well, he didn't admit to anything, but on the flip side, he didn't deny anything...

He had his opportunity to give his side of the story, but instead chose not to. That made the judge's job a lot easier.

Are you saying that the poster, who told me he admitted to it, was lying for the sole purpose of causing harm?

Should we bring in a legal team? How do we determine if harm was caused?

 

[Whyayeman]

However, if you listen to some of his rhetoric, he explains why he had his doubts and his beliefs on the subject. e.g. he states that he yelled fire, because he smelled the smoke.....he didnt just yell fire for no reason....according to him.

His 'doubts' are fabricated. Those children were shot dead. He said it was faked. He lied.

That is despicable. No wonder he could not bring himself to court to face the people he wounded.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you saying that the poster, who told me he admitted to it, was lying for the sole purpose of causing harm?

I don't know what Alex Jones has or hasn't admitted to -- but he didn't say much of anything to the judge...

Should we bring in a legal team? How do we determine if harm was caused?

We? Have you been harmed in any way? Perhaps you should consult a lawyer who specialized in defamation cases.

Fair warning: They're going to charge you a non-refundable retainer just to hear you, and will probably do nothing but laugh at you when you're done. Still, it's your money...

 

[cow451]

Are you saying that the poster, who told me he admitted to it, was lying for the sole purpose of causing harm?

Should we bring in a legal team? How do we determine if harm was caused?

He blamed the media for driving him crazy and that he was mistaken. IOW he is usually lying his butt off whenever his mouth moves.
Alex Jones psychosis: Infowars star blames distrust on Sandy Hook talk

 

[Bobber]

An interesting piece here. Was Jones guilty of actual malice? Did he actually believe what he was saying or did he KNOW it was absolutely wrong?

Opinion: Alex Jones loses Sandy Hook case, but important defamation issues remain unresolved (ctpost.com)

 

[Bobber]

You are exercising your freedom by posting this, you know.

Because one exercises their freedom and steps out and says something....does that mean they couldn't get a knock on the door by someone wanting to arrest them? Wouldn't have meant that person was living in a place of freedom at all!

 

[loveofourlord]

An interesting piece here. Was Jones guilty of actual malice? Did he actually believe what he was saying or did he KNOW it was absolutely wrong?

Opinion: Alex Jones loses Sandy Hook case, but important defamation issues remain unresolved (ctpost.com)

Here is the thing, I think at a certain point or level you VERY much are liable wether you knew it was wrong or not. If your going to make claims that libel and that defamatory you need real hard evidence your right even if you believe it. Especially if you have a huge audience. And remember private citizens have more protection then public.

 

[Bobber]

No, just the freedom to use freedom improperly.

I won't connect this to the Jones case but do you know how many totalitarians regimes have made statement like this to defend their tyrannical ways?