does alex jones have free speech?

jones crossed the line in his broadcasts about the sandy hook event, and should have been punished, but

clearly the original intent of the founders in these cases was demonstrated by aaron burr in his dispute with hamilton. any of the fathers would probably be understood by a jury for utilizing the 2nd amendment on jones.

where exactly does free speech cross the line?

 

Re free speech the Constitution says " Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." that has not happened. Jones made public non factual statements that damaged other people. No one stopped him. He is now paying those people for the damage he caused them.
There are consequences for what one says freely and openly. Apparently destroying peoples lives with lies repeated over and over again for profit has consequences.
Speech is like owning a firearm you have the right to have it and the right to use it until you grossly misuse it.

 

I know almost nothing about Alex Jones, and in truth I have paid no attention to any of these lawsuits as far as specifics. I have heard about him on here, but have never seen or heard his show etc. It is my understanding that he denied that Sandy Hook was real, and for that he sounds like a major league jack*ss. I am not taking up for his position in any manner, shape, or form.

With all of that being said, the notion of a jury returning a billion-dollar verdict seems ridiculous to me. In my opinion, a person has every right in the world to be a complete nutjob. While his words Im sure were highly offensive to the victims families, I do not buy the notion that they have suffered actionable harm that deserves any type of financial verdict, much less one that is a billion dollars. I despise the litigious nature of today's society, and I believe this is a perfect example of a civil justice system run amok.

 

The whole issue is obviously pretty nebulous, multi-faceted, and highly political. That said, it would be essential to review any and all aspects of laws governing defamation, slander and libel. Equally important would be a very good understanding of the landmark Supreme Court case, "New York Times versus Sullivan" (1964): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39 . It's utterly AMAZING how complicated these free-speech issues can be!

There! I haven't really told you anything conclusive... and even after you pore through all the stuff I've mentioned, you may not really know a hell of a lot more governing the OP's question, either....

 

I believe that, when you have an audience of millions, you must understand that your words can have consequences. He was free to speak them, but when they fueled others to attack the families, he must face those consequences. Had nothing damaging happened to the families I would see no reason to go after him - but there was damage and he is responsible.

 

I’d be curious what sort of evidence he “ruined their lives” you have.

 

I have no evidence personally, but I am willing to believe the opinion two American judges and two American juries. It is not for me or for you to prove or disprove that these people have suffered...

 

Well it was up to people just like us. Not sure why we couldn’t pontificate upon the evidence just like they did.

 

Because they heard all the evidence directly and we did not.
Because our Constitution set up a system of deciding such matters
Because in two seperate trials he has been judged guilty
Because he has the right to appeal those opinions under the Constitution
Because he deserves no defense when, according to our legal system, he used lies to defame innocent people and cause them personal harm and pain in order to enrich himself and promote his causes.

Why would any good American want to defend this man?

 

If there is no law then why was it in court. A tort is a "legal" liability. What speech law did he violate?

 

Exactly agree, know nothing about him or much about what he said. I await what the appeals court has to say about the proceeding and verdict.

 

It's not about him it is about the law and how it is being applied here. He's a jerk, a wacko. He apparently said some vile things. He appears to be a willful liar. You have a right to be such things in this country.

The families claim certain sufferings but are they a tort? Are they actionalbe against Jones?

Take the emotions out of it and look at the law.

And the judge stopped the trial and made a default judgement based on Jones not turning over evidence he claimed does not exist and declaring that "defamation". The jury did not deliberate on that they only rules on the monetary amour which seems a pretty outrageous amount that wi be lowered.on appeal.

 

Causing harm, especially if it is intentionally or knowingly causing harm for personal gain.

Determining whether particular speech actually caused harm and, if some to what extent is the difficulty bit of course, and that is why we have such court cases (and why they take so long!).

 

I concur.

"Freedom of Speech" means that people will not be jailed for voicing their opinions. It does not and has NEVER meant "...without consequences".

Jones absolutely has "Freedom of Speech" as that was his medium to stoke up his followers. That right has never been denied to him.

Any of us can shout "fire!" in a movie theatre or "bomb" in an airport but that will lead to a perp walk because those words in those specific locations are forbidden for safety reasons.

MTG has the right to cheat on her husband but that doesn't mean her words to her side man don't have consequences.

 

Free speech can be expensive.

 

No matter which way this case went, the verdict was going to be wrong.

The problem with the ruling is that it might discourage people in the future from expressing their opinion about an issue.

 

However, when it goes past expressing an opinion to lies attacking innocent people who have rights too it has gone too far.

 

If he believes it, it is not a lie. It is just a wrong opinion.
Like I said, there is no right verdict.

 

Sometimes free speech can get expensive.

 

What if he made it up?

Yes there is a correct and legal verdict.
If what you posted were accurate than there never can be anything that is false as long as a person believes it. That defies logic. eg I don't think I should go to jail for killing my neighbor because he deserved it.

 

Supreme Court has ruled what is and what is not "free speech." Commercial speech is not free spech per se. Free speech is not libel, slander, or perjury, generally.

Alex Jones would not have had a problem if it did this once or twice and then dropped the whole argument, but Alex Jones did not do that. He continued to use his radio show and website to not only question the shooting at Sandy Hook, but to claim that the parents were actors, stooges, government agents, etc, and used a tone and methodology to entice his audience to get riled up on this knowing full well what they were capable of. He just didn't care, acted like a bully, and now is paying the legal consequences in a civil trial of his actions.

 

Not exactly true for civil cout. If you claim in civil court that you believe something, then you must also prove that belief in court, especially if you are the plaintiff or the respondent.

 

Nobody is defending Jones. However to assert his statements even REMOTELY caused $1,000,000,000 in damages is preposterous beyond words.

 

We can "what if" until the cows come home, but we still do not know for sure.

 

The definition of lying does not change.