does alex jones have free speech?

I’m not claiming anything as I was not there to listen to the testimony and, more importantly, neither were you. You have no clue what these families went through becaimuse of Jones. You know who does know? The jury. The people who listened to all the testimony and unanimously decided that Jones had to pay out almost one billion dollars. You have no leg to stand on when you decide you want to second guess their decision.

 

Here's what you don't understand Alex Jones has millions of followers who were threatening Sandy Hook parents Death threats stalkers et cetera and imagine losing a child then having to deal with that?

There is no question that the Apellate courts will lower the award but he'll still be left with paying millions

 

From here it looks as if Jones flourished in a time and space created by Trump where truth is called fake news and lies are used to manipulate the population.
The congressional committee, the trials of the terrorists who stormed the capitol building and this case against Jones is part way to reestablishing that truth and facts are not what someone tris to tell you they are, or what you want them to be.
This notion was a large part of populism which thankfully has shrunk in influencing people's minds; Such stuff cannot last long in the face of facts but a lot of time was wasted in disproving it.

 

Im not talking about legalities, I’m saying
1 - people are wimps and sue over feelings, yes the parents suffered a loss over the shooting but they went after Jones in my opinion because they wanted revenge and an outlet
2 - the courts support this kind of wanton lawsuit (I would say it’s abuse of the court system)

 

From what I read, because of what hecsaid and wrote, parents were being physically targeted, denied jobs, ridiculed, bullied and felt in danger of being attacked.
Hence the court decision.
Libel has consequences. Slander has consequences. Jones was the root cause of all that.

 

I haven’t seen anything about denying jobs. I see reports of threats which would allow a lawsuit maybe. Did Jones tell people to threaten the parents, did he tell them to leave the parents alone?

What’s most interesting is how the left has gone nuts supporting the lawsuit yet defends BLM and antifa even though they caused $Billions in riot damage, injured many people and killed some.

This is just another case of democrat hypocrisy and why people don’t believe anything they say.

 

Don't try it on, creating bars for others to climb over

If you want to charge BLM or anyone else, take them to court.
And I'll bet there were Republicans and Democrats among those parents. Using them to make your OWN political capital is frankly odious.

 

I believe that the "indirect" route that you speak of is a slippery slope. Just because person A says something negative about person B, and then person C decides to cause harm as a result of the negative that they heard from person A, in no way makes person A responsible for the actions of person C.

For a billion dollar verdict to arise from the above situation, especially when the worst thing to actually happen are a few purported threats, is an example of our civil litigation system run amok, which has been my position all along. I feel as if I have more than adequately supported that predicate.

 

Some people weighing in with their opinions on a contemporary news story on a political chat board?.....Oh heavens to Murgatroyd! Can you imagine? (Clutches pearls)

 

That's interesting. I would say that if you were actually not threatened by discovering facts, and you were a curious person, you would already have read about and studied the many facts available that contradict the official narrative.

 

This has been a long conversation with several different people. I am not interested in starting back again at square one.

 

All the AF1 flights show is that POTUS had a direct interest in the event and any agenda towards gun control it might support.

 

So, how does that support the idea that it was a false flag?

 

I am a common sense guy. I actually had always thought that you were as well.

At any rate, your narrative, in my estimation defies common sense. Such an endeavor would be both highly complicated in addition to being fraught with unbelievable peril of being caught, and for what? So that the anti-gun lobby could once again further their narrative because of yet another school shooting? Why not just wait until the next ACTUAL school shooting which is always not that far away? Common sense says this would not be worth it. In other words, the juice would not be worth the squeeze. I like to bash the left as much as the next guy, but this one is just not credible.

I truly find it difficult to take seriously. On top of that, I am honestly not all that interested in the topic where I am going to dedicate any length of time studying supposed "contradictory facts". In this instance, common sense more than suffices.

 

The goal of SH was gun control. The planners were attempting to advance national gun control. Ironically, several states succeeded in that effort, including Connecticut, but on the federal level it failed. All we got was Fast N' Furious.

 

If you've ever been "in government" you would know how easy it is to stage false flag events. By deception we shall wage war is an old saying, not sure who said it first.

It is by way of training exercises that so many of these false flag events take place. Under cover of a scheduled "training exercise" the innocent and unknowing pawns become involved in the deception. That simple mechanism applies to 911, Sandy Hook, the attack in London of the Tube there, San Bernardino, Parkland and so many more. It is elegantly simple and most effective.

For example, at San Bernardino, Scott Pelley of CBS told an eye witness who worked there that her story simply could not be true, because "the authorities told us it was a man and his wife" that did the shooting.

Without a gullible and complicit media these things would not work as well.

 

You keep saying things without an evidence. I know it's cool to imagine yourself as smarter than everyone else and that everyone else is a sheep, but you quickly lose touch with reality from that mindset.

If the democrats want gun control, they don't have to create false flags, there will always be a mass shooting they can use.

Maybe if you called Sandy Hook a true flag, it would make more sense.

 

If you sign something under penalties of perjury, then you are admitting voluntarily that what you are affirming is the truth as fact. There is a difference between stating a fact and stating an opinion. Somehow, I don't think you understand the difference.

See point above.

 

But people were threatened, plots to "dig up the graves," constant harassment had to take time away from work to get away from the harassment and may affect their performance at the job, etc. So yes, there was an injury. The injury does not have to be physical, it can be mental as well.

 

Maybe I'm more perceptive than you?

"There will always be a mass shooting" is true, but many of them have been false flags. You are simply unable or unwilling to examine the facts of many of these shootings, or to examine the narrative closely.

 

Like i said, it makes you feel good to believe that.

 

I see that you have put a lot of emphasis on the above notion. I am going to share with you why I personally discount that notion.

In the early 2000's, I used to work in pharma, and one of the things that I did was set up a lot of dinners where a professional speaker would come talk to a group of physicians over a meal. One of these speakers was a nationally renowned doctor whom had served as an expert witness in something like a thousand different civil suits regarding drug side effects.

His advice? When sued over a drug side effect SETTLE, because the odds are that you are going to lose. These talks were with psychiatrists, and at that time, there were 2 big gun antipsychotics that were available. One of these drugs caused diabetes in something like 5% of patients, and the other created a mostly irreversible movement disorder in about 2%. For a doctor that works at a busy Community Mental Health Center and had several thousand patients under their care, this side effect was not an if, but rather a when as far as it occurring. The doctors cannot refuse to treat an actively psychotic patient, they had to give them one of these drugs or it would be malpractice. When prescribing these drugs, you ARE going to see these side effects. This is not indicative of the doctor doing anything wrong. But if a patient with one of these side effects hooks up with a lawyer, the advice is to setlle.

Why do you think his advice was to settle despite the reality that they had done not one thing wrong?

What this doctor said was that despite the actual facts of the case, you are dealing with a jury of laymen that are overwhelmingly apt to side with a sympathy-inducing defendant versus the big evil insurance company. It is as simple as that. Civil juries have sympathy for defendants and they are biased asgainst the supposed big guy in the equation.

Now apply this logic to Sandy Hook. Who could possibly be more sympathy inducing than the parents of Sandy Hook? With that being the case, you will have to excuse me if I throw up in my mouth just a bit as you spout this nonsense about who are we to disagree with the jury. You are under the mistaken and highly naive belief that if it came from a jury, then it must be just, and cannot be questioned. That is simply not true.

For crying out loud, civil juries are notorious for rubber stamping their approval for sympathy-inducing defendants. This billion dollar verdict is yet another example of our civil litigation system run amok. You may think this is a good thing. I do not.

 

Over the years there have been many examples of people with whom I converse that are unable to see the obvious. I can see it, they cannot, for whatever reason. Many times the reason is that the reality of it is just too darn unpleasant for them to entertain.

 

It is obvious to me that you have nothing to back up your conspiracies.

But you keep on feeling like you are not a sheep. Stock up on bone broth.

 

I have stated my position on the conspiracy theory and am happy to leave it at that.