does alex jones have free speech?

I respect your opinion but we have reached an impasse. I have followed the Sandy Hook tragedy very closely and I live 17 minutes by highway from Newtown. You obviously do not believe that the threats made to the parents of Sandy Hook were and are real. True that civil awards have been increasing over time. Yet do use the outlier or the extreme condition case from either side to paint a trend. There will always be the case of a stupid clumsy old lady who allegedly burns herself with Ronald McDonalds coffee. Or the stupid bozo woman from South Somewhere who eats contraceptive gel instead of using it properly. This Sandy Hook case is an outlier case as I said above. Yes we need to watch trends but not hang our hat on the outlier of either end.

 

Yes, I already knew that.

 

I can tell you've never been in "government"

 

None of the shootings have been false flags. We have a mass shooting in the United States at least once a week in this country, sometimes a couple in a week that makes the national news. Compared to the rest of the world, we are pretty much number one at this all the time. It has gotten so bad at times that even foreign governments have placed travel warnings to its citizens in coming here.

A lot of times after a mass shooting, whether at a church, in a hotel room, or wherever, the aftermath brings in the usual arguments of either gun control or the "let's just pray for the victim's families" sort of thing. Gun politics in this country has most people brain dead, IMO, on what reasonable course of action should be taken to prevent as much as possible this from happening again.

 

I suspected that was the case.

 

He hasn't. Not local, state, or even federal. I have 20-plus years, and no false flags at all. The government usually reacts more often on something than proacting on something. But so do businesses as well.

 

You cannot prove that claim that none of the 'mass shootings' were false flags.

You make that statement based upon the claims of the US mainstream media and a government that has been lying since before The Pentagon Papers came out. You make that claim without having examined any of the facts involved. You make it in an informational vacuum.

 

It still just your opinion unless you believe you can never be wrong. You can believe something is a fact, but that does not make it a fact.

 

deleted

 

Even if the threats are real, I do not believe that liability via the indirect route that you speak of is a good idea. That literally opens up pandoras box in civil litigation.

I would like to get your opinion on my post #272. That is a state of affairs that I think is driving such a verdict, and when it really comes down to it, the level of Sandy Hook being sympathetic figures should not actually have anything to do with legal liability. Emotion should NOT be a part of the law.

 

Sure, try taking the democrat party or their operatives to court. It’s so easy to say “take them to court” but utterly impossible.

Learn to read, it’s democrats who are using the jones case and the shooting for their political gain. Who within days of a shooting is holding up pictures of children and crying crocodile tears and saying “we have to save the children”? Democrats.

 

You don't like children?

 

ISTM there is a hard kernel of people in here who believe in conspiracy theories, fake news, absolving the judicially found publically practised crimes of libel and slander, refusing to see things that are recorded and coroborated via video and social media, and frankly I don't believe it. I do not believe there is a central core of belief in their objections...just refusal. Just a strained effort to say "what if" and reverting fact to absurdum , presenting desperate nonsense as rebuttal in disguise.
For example I suggested if someone objected to BLM they should take them to court. The reply was "I can't take the government to court".
What the...??

I have no idea what they believe in . They seem to object to law and support the terrorist attack on the government they use as a reason to carry a gun. They actually pretend there were no weapons that day. I don't know if they believe what they say or are just crossing their fingers. Some of the denial is insulting.
They don't seem to be FOR anything, just AGAINST what actually happens.
So I just can't take them seriously OTHER THAN they still would like to interfere with democracy if they could.
They need watching closely.

 

You just said 'I know almost nothing about Alex Jones', so apparently, you never left square one.

 

So I politely conveyed that I am not interested in starting at the beginning of what has already been a very long conversation with several different people, so you just figured that you would throw in an insult for good measure?

Wow.

A nice person would have simply moved on.

 

With exception of creating an unsafe environment for others, free speech should be unlimited.

Protecting ones emotions is not a safety thing.

When we start to quality "free speech" only in alignment with ones perspectives or truths, we have created a very dangerous situation.

I think people that believe in flat earth or a 911 conspiracy are wrong, but I would die to protect their rights to say it.

 

While I am not sure what the rest of your post was prattling about, I wanted to comment on the above.

What makes you think that someone would have legal standing to take BLM to court simply because they object to what they are doing? This suggestion does not make a lick of sense. Are you under the impression that anyone can take anyone to court by virtue of objecting to their actions?

What the ...??

 

Before addressing the sympathy issue I want to talk about the fact that insurance companies do at times settle a case even though we may believe we may feel the case has no merit. The reason we did that it to avoid having the court set a precedent. Just as an aside I spent the first half of my insurance career in property casualty claims department. The last half on the dark side, health insurance.
Sympathy does at times enter into a court cases even in criminal cases. Other times sympathy is ignored. The criminal trial of OJ Simpson was tainted by reverse racism and no sympathy for the family of the two people who were murdered. The civil case went against OJ because he got away with murder in the criminal case. So in the civil case it was revenge ( justified) , punishment, and some element of sympathy. You are theoretically correct that sympathy should not enter into a court case but until we replace judges and juries with AI’s you will have the human element enter into court cases.
In the Sandy Hook case I see that as two fold. There was I believe a strong motivation to punish Jones. As regard the extremely high financial award I believe that it was arrived at for two reason:
1- the jury needed to punish Jones for his “crime” of lying for money and for partisan political reasons.
2- the award amount was in my opinion set that high to make a statement

You will likely say that such a high award sets a precedent and that I am was concerned for the industry with precedence. True. You will likely say that Jones has the right of free speech True but for the vast majority of our rights we have a responsibility not to cause harm while exercising a right. You will say that Jones caused no harm. I as all along differ with you.
I hope this is a unique case e.g. one of a kind. Jones behaved like a fecal eating monster and his cultists like mindless zombies. I am not going to agree with that the jury only or mostly acted on sympathy. I am repeating myself but I believe the jury had no other way to punish Jones.

 

Ok I just did.

 

The nationally renowned speaker that I referenced suggested settling, if for no other reason, than that litigating in court is going to cost just about as much as the cost to settle, so you may as well not take the risk because it will cost you at least that much anyway and you could potentially lose far more. He further noted that this average litigation cost is precisely why that particular number would be the settlement offer ( at that time it was around 30k). It literally is an offer that for all intents and purposes, cannot (or should not) be refused.

In truth, this type of lawyer is little more than a crook. They are not seeking justice. They are seeking profit, for themselves. They could not care less about the plaintiffs. It is all about them, and they will lie, exaggerate, and coach plaintiffs as to what to say in order to achieve their aim. They do everything they can to play on the sympathy of the jury, justice be damned.

You can rest assured that the same description fits the Jones Case lawyers. I think that a lot of people assume that I am taking up for Jones. I am not. As I have said many times now, I am opposing the lawyers and the civil litigation system run amok as a result of those lawyers and the environment that they have carefully carved out within the civil system.

 

Or maybe the award represented the number of children he pooed on.

 

That is possible. How else do we punish a fecal aggression eating bacteria.

 

Can I Sue the United States Government? - Laws101.com

IS IT POSSIBLE TO SUE THE US GOVERNMENT
The short answer is – yes, you can, but it’s not going to be easy. Filing a civil suit against the federal government is a lot harder than suing a private citizen. These lawsuits are marred with a complex list of legal limitations that may require you to jump through several hoops just to get the justice you deserve.

Historically, the doctrine of sovereign immunity made it impossible to sue the monarchy. That practice has carried over to modern rule, making it impossible to file a civil suit against the government unless, of course, the government allows it. That’s essentially what the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is – a means through which the government allows private citizens to sue it.
​

Unless you are Bill Gates, an individual has no chance of funding a major lawsuit against the govt, and it would take years of delays, obstruction, appeals, discovery, counter suits. And you are limited in who you can sue in the govt, and you can't sue "the govt" you have to sue the specific individual that is responsible - if you can ever identify that individual. Basically you have to have all the evidence before you even start - good luck getting that in your lifetime.

 

The answer to the question is: YES he has the same free speech rights as every other American and is subject to the same restrictions. No right is absolute; one of the founders made the point that a person's rights extend only to point they don't significant impinge on the rights of others. Clearly, Jones' rants significant impacted the family of the victims. The judgement was correct.

 

Free speech, like ALL rights, ends where the rights of others begin. You cannot falsely scream "fire" in a crowded theory, because you could be infringing on the right to safety of others.