does alex jones have free speech?

Whew, the pearl-clutching and weeping and gnashing of teeth seems very much confined to the play actors. Tears on demand before the cameras seen by at least one. Fantastic appeals to emotions are all the official narrative is.

 

Wow you are all over the board here?

At any rate, no I am NOT saying that attempted murder is no harm no foul. For that to be a valid analogy, you would have to say that Jones was telling people to go harm these parents and that obviously is not the case. You are acting as if expressing a dislike against someone else would then somehow make that person liable for anything that any nutjob subsequently does to the person that they expressed dislike about. If he had called for harm to those parents I would be at the head of the line wanting him lynched.

It is a huge leap in logic that you and others are taking that his words of negativity somehow make him liable for the subsequent actions by others that he did not call for.

When Maxine Waters called for everyone to get up in the face of the Trump cabinet, I could see if something bad were to happen that it could be argued that she was liable because she actually called for that specific action. That is not what we are dealing with here. What we are dealing with are people that are acting completely on their own, oh, and by the way, they have actually done nothing to actually harm any of them anyway.

That is MUCH different than me saying that attempted murder is no harm no foul.

 

SCOTUS already agrees that you are free to remain ignorant. Nothing to ask them.

 

When I heard the 911 truther conspiracy, I did not need to hear one detail before I knew that was utter nonsense. All that was required was a modicum of common sense and the knowledge that there is no way that they could do a controlled demolition of 2 giant buildings and one smaller one where they were able to clandestinely plant all of the necessary explosives. This would have taken months and the complicity of hundreds, if not thousands of people. Oh, and not one camera or person saw any of this in the months that it would have taken to accomplish this. Once a person abandons common sense and starts digging into the details of these nonsensical theories is when you are caught up in the nonsense. Every good conspiracy theory is filled with pseudoscientific intelligent-sounding "data" that sounds plausible to the layman. That creates a situation where just a little knowledge is far more misleading than having no knowledge of the subject at all.

The first mistake is simply abandoning common sense.

 

Hush and run along.

The adults are speaking.

 

For the parents of 20 murdered Sandy Hook children the law suit was not about money. Money was the tool of punishment. Let’s assume that hanging until death was still a popular way to kill a convicted murderer.
The rope is not the what the victim families want it is but an instrument of death for the guilty .


Are you now or have you ever been a parent? Have you lost a child through death? I have. No not in any way remotely like the Sandy Hook parents. Are you going to tell me that the loss of my child has no affect on me? Are you going to tell that my child did not die but faked his death. What the Sandy Hook parents have undergone and maybe still are is infinitely worse than what I ( and my wife did while she was still alive) did and am going through.

I assure you it is not nonsense to lose a child through death.

 

No, you are bloody well not interested in hearing details that might threaten or contradict your conditioned understanding of various events we see on the tube. Got it! You are typically a creature of our mainstream media and very proud of it.

I have 2 brothers and numerous good friends who see the world the same way--the way the MSM describes it. Long live the spirit of Edward Bernays.

 

Boo boo, show me on the doll where the slander laws hurt you.

 

That would occur if you take the stand and testify. But if you provide claims and do not prove, or have prima facie evidence, of that claim, then generally the suit will be dismissed.

 

Depends on how the question is asked. Lawyers will generally object ot your answer as nonresponsive and ask to the judge for you to tell something that you know, don't know. This is what happened in the Texas lawsuit with Alex Jones.

 

I am a parent, and no I am fortunate to say that I have not lost a child. I sincerely am sorry to hear that you have, and I truly mean that.

In regards to the Sandy Hook parents, I can absolutely, positively understand why someone saying that their death was fake would be enraging, and I have said nor implied nothing to the contrary. With that being said, this highly offensive language does not make the offender liable in any way for the actions of some nutjob who heard his opinion that their deaths were faked. Just because they have been through a horrible ordeal of which I have unending sympathy for them, does NOT mean that their subsequent legal claims will be treated any differently than if it were someone else making the legal assertion.

 

I can assure you that I do not feel threatened or contradicted in any way. Even if you are going to assert that I am wrong, I am 100% not threatened by it because not one fiber of my being believes for one iota of a second that such a ruse is realistically plausible.

With that being said, I think that people that want to pursue and even espouse this belief, have every right to do so.

 

You just have to be honest. 'I believe this because ......" The law does not require you to have conclusive evidence.

You cannot state what you do not know without lying. As I said above, you have to be honest. You say 'I believe this because ......". The lawyer can claim on that you are non-responsive till the cows come home. It does not change what you know or do not know.

 

I am surprised that I even have to explain what are the harms from a civil litigation system run amok.

Among other things, it hurts by clogging up our courts, and ultimately raising the cost of all forms of insurance as a result of these out of control liability claims across all segments of society

"One study showed that the cost of liability claims constitutes 1.66% of U.S. GDP" (Lawyers take roughly half of this amount)
Blame and Claim: Can We Fix America's Uniquely Litigious Culture? | American Council on Science and Health (acsh.org)

On the flip side, Lawyers LOVE our civil litigation system that goes far above and beyond anything that happens in other countries. You apparently love it too. Duly noted.

I oppose this state of affairs, and no I am NOT going to "take with Scotus". I am merely expressing my opinion in the opinion section of this board. Imagine that?

 

Until you have heard the testimony from these families you don't get to throw accusations of "bogus peal-clutching"

I find it amazing that some local yokel sitting in front of a computer seems to think he has a better understanding of the suffering of these families then the jurists who actually sat in the courtroom and heard the testimony.

 

If you are under oath, then you have to tell the truth. I believe in something is not being truthful. It is an opinioin. If you are asked what is your opinion, then that may be granted and you can say "I believe this to be true."

If you are asked a question that you don't know under oath, then you can say, "I don't know." YOu can also say, "I don't recall." It would be up to the lawyer questioning you to prove that you know by providing evidence and confronting you with it.

 

I will ignore your ad homs and simply ask the same question again... What are you claiming has happened to these parents as a result of these silly conspiracy theories that you think constitutes "destroying their lives" as you put it?

It's a sincere question, and it cuts to the true heart of this matter.

Furthermore, even if we pretend like you have a good answer to the above question... why would someone that did not direct or even remotely suggest whatever action you are claiming destroyed their lives, be liable for the independent actions of others?

 

Do you think that AF1 was the only place Obama's people could meet with them to get their stories straight?

What do you think happened on Af1 during the parent's flight to DC?

 

Anything you say is an opinion. It may be true or untrue.

You can also just tell the truth and state why you believe something is true.

 

I garrantee you that the damage award will get the attention of an appelate court. That number is coming way down.

 

I see that we are not going to come to an agreement but that is fine as long as we have had a civil and respectful discussion. I leave you with this one thought that is a concept we used when I was in the property casualty claims department ions ago. I see what Jones did as having a consequential effect on nutjobs and he triggered and he was responsible albeit indirectly for the result they caused. It is up to the legal system to determine if his responsibility was based on legal, moral, or criminal basis.

 

Nobody lost their job, lost money, was injured. No property damages. Just hurt feelings.

 

More than that, but the threshold for defamation against private citizens is quite low. You cannot go on the air and announce Joe Smith is a paid actor who lied about his child dying in his arms.” He then showed “proof” by heavily editing video. Then he failed to appear for the trial.

lol some of you have no clue.

 

You just confirmed what I said.

Jones lied but what was the result? No lost jobs, no property damage, no injury, no lost finances. Just hurt feelings.

 

There doesn’t have to be. Lol. His targets were not public figures. That changes the calculus. SCOTUS ruled on that in the 60s, I think.