Alex Jones’ InfoWars files for bankruptcy in face of multiple lawsuits

Is this what is called a pyrrhic victory ? fmw said that Jones hateful, hurtful exercise of free speech was protected by the 1st Amendment and that he objected to something. Jones will suffer some consequences because of what he said.

Good.

 

Here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni...ch that are,law, true threats, and commercial

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_claims_and_lawsuits

"In March 2018, six families of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims, and an FBI agent who responded to the attack, filed a defamation suit against Jones for spreading false claims, resulting in the harassment, stalking and threatening of survivors."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm

Let me know if you still don't understand the difference between free speech and what Alex Jones did to the families of murdered children.

 

Let me know if you come to an understanding of the difference between speech and consequences of what one says.

 

So, basically , Jones should not have lied unless he was willing to face the consequences .

 

Bingo.

 

With all of the links I've provided, and the examples I've explained in detail, if you still don't understand, you likely never will. I'm done.

 

Goodbye.

 

If your opinion causes harm, you will be sued for defamation.

And the amount of compensation will be equivalent to the number of people who heard/read what you said and the severity of the consequences.

In the Sandy Hook case, Jones' listeners went out and threatened the parents of the young victims.

Is this something you condone?

 

No, but I blame those who threatened, not the fool who spread nonsense.

 

If Jones hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

And it's not like Jones lost a single case.

The streak is long.

 

Of course. But that still doesn't put the blame in the right place. People determine their own actions.

 

And all that is happening here is that he is suffering the consequences of his speech. Isn’t that what you say you support?

 

Absolutely. But in my view the rage should be on the people that you say he influenced. The consequence is misguided. Imagine if we were to cancel every politician who lied or stated nonsensical opinions.

 

Depends on the lie.
For example - if I started telling your neighbors, work colleagues, friends, parents of the local school kids that you were a predatory pedophile with a long history of raping and torturing little boys and girls, would that be ok with you? Just me exercising my first amendment rights?

And if some of those people got together and started harassing you and your family, slashing your tires, spray painting signs on your house - don’t you think I, as the person who started the false lie, would bear primary responsibility for what ensued?

By the way, I am most definitely not accusing you of that, just using it as a hypothetical example.

 

Yes and the consequence for your slander would be a lawsuit.

No. I think the tire slashers should face the consequences.

I think the problem with your example is that the first point is that you were doing the slandering. In the second point you were not the perpetrator. It is easy to understand why expressing a nonsensical opinion is hateful but it is only an opinion. I assume he didn't blame the parents of the murdered children for anything. He simply failed to believe that the shooting happened. He should have been ignored. People who were motivated to do harm based on his opinion deserve the consequences of their actions.

 

Debunked. Not that anyone really cares

 

That right there is complete bullshit. Influence can be a powerful thing. It takes very little to rile people up in this era of conspiracy nuts. Or did you think the everyone involved thought of harassing these families all on their own?

 

No, I don't think that. But they did the deeds of their own volition.

 

Yeah ... a guy yelled "fire!" in a crowded theater, and several people were trampled to death in the stampede that resulted. The panicked people, of their own volition, stomped on those who fell, and the guy who yelled "fire!" bears no responsibility. That is essentially what you're saying.

Jones incited the harassment of these families. That isn't my opinion, that's an established fact.

Why are you trying so hard to defend that lunatic? Or do you really not understand the freedom, and the restrictions, of the 1st Amendment? Freedom isn't possible unless we all take responsibility for the consequences of our words and deeds.

 

I'm not defending a lunatic. I have never ever listened to word he has said. He isn't the issue. I am defending free speech.

 

Oh ffs, the old fire in a crowded theatre thing. You have the right to say unpopular things, yes, but NOT the right to defraud and/or cause people harm.

They made a whole MOVIE about this kind of thing in 1981. Called "Absence of Malice" You never saw it?

 

And I've explained several times now that what Jones said was not free speech, it was the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I've provided links, given examples, and yet you still don't (or won't) understand. I'm done here.

 

And here come the consequences :

"Opening statements and testimony are set for Tuesday. Family members of the shooting victims and Jones were not in the courtroom when
a 12-person jury and four alternates were selected Monday from a jury pool of more than 100.

“We’re very glad the day is here,” said Mark Bankston, attorney for the families suing Jones. “We’re looking forward to
telling our clients’ story.”

It’s unclear if Jones will attend any of the scheduled two-week trial. His attorney said Jones has a “medical issue” but did
not elaborate."

This gutless stain needs to end up on welfare in public housing for the rest of his life.

 

America will be a better place without Jones. I've never understood why people followed him.

 

And yet who knew about Boheamian Grove before Alex Jones reported on it? Did you know?