This is a tricky one for me - not sure where I fall on it. Restricting speech is something we should be very careful about.
Shut that fat fucking lunatic down, what he does is NOT journalismâŚ
Less about restricting speech, more about responsibility of the consequences of that speech when given a platform, that doxes, evokes violence and tacitly endorses vigilantism. If it was the govt bringing charges then it would be a restriction of speech case - in my opinion.
The constitution is not a suicide pact,
and
You cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
There are limits to free speech, in a real world.
Yes restricting speech can be tricky but when a bad actor/journalist has repeatedly fed the rubes lies and then tries to claim âheâs sorry for their lossâ years later all the while profiting from his lies then Iâm going with restrict his speech.
Jones and Trump are two story lines that are converging in real time. Jones has for years stoked the fears and outrage to his base, same as Trump is doing in a shorter amount of time.
If some follower of Jones had actually harmed, or killed a Sandy Hook parent would/could Jones be brought into the indictedâs defense?
As they say if you put it out on the internet it is always there. These parents whether they win or lose will always have to fear someone attacking them.
Jones is less than pond scum, but even he should have the benefit of the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does not protect speech made with knowledge it is false, or with reckless indifference to whether it is false, when that speech is intended to defame. That seems to be the plaintiffsâ case here.
Justice Holmes said that free speech does not protect a person from shouting âFire!â in a crowded theater. In some sense, thatâs what Jones did here. He knew that his audience was likely to be inflamed by his comments, and intended that they be, and at best he did not care whether what he said had any relation to reality or not.
Arenât there consequences for âfree speechâ? If it includes lies that harm others, there has to be a price to pay.
Jones has since admitted the Sandy Hook shooting occurred and his attorney, Mark Enoch, began the hearing by saying that his client wanted âto reiterate the fact that he is sorry for their loss.â
This blatant lie is an even bigger insult than Jonesâs original defamation of these poor people.
There has been harassment of the families.There have to be consequences
https://patch.com/connecticut/stratford/pd-conspiracy-theorist-arrested-vicki-soto-5k-race-0
The 1st Amendment only denies the GOVERNMENT from restricting freedom of speech, and nowhere does it protect the speaker from the CONSEQUENCES of âfree speech.â
That is why we have Libel and Defamation laws, to punish people for the CONSEQUENCES of their speech when it is proven to be false and malicious in INTENT.
Alex Jones is free to say whatever he wants but he is not free of the consequences of having said it. If he defames another person â tells damaging lies about that person â that private individual can sue for the damage caused. This is the traditional remedy for someone who has been lied about in a damaging way going back to English Common Law.
There are several things a person must prove to establish that libel has taken place. In the United States, a person must prove that 1) the statement was false, 2) caused harm, and 3) was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth,[15] which is usually specifically referred to as âactual maliceâ.[16]
This is what gets me too. Jones has profited off of his lies for years, while the parents and siblings have had to mourn and then endure this harassment for years.
He is neck and neck with Trumpty for Times Malicious Person of the Century award.
I had no idea there was such a huge market for âcrisis actorsâ in the US. do they have agents, qualify for their Equity cards (and minimum Equity pay scale?), and which Fed/State agencies are responsible for hiring them? perhaps Mr. Jones can enlighten us. probably not, since he himself is nothing more than a glorified âcrisis actorâ.
He called ALL the parents of the dead children LIARS. He said the dead children never existed.
If this isnât defamation, I donât know what the fuck is.
Yes, yes, yes
A thousand times YES!!!
I am going to copy your comment and use it as my new desktop wallpaper, so I never forget it.
The title is click-bait.
I think the headline here is a little misleading â or else something got dropped from the article. While itâs true that the defendants filed a motion to dismiss (as is often done in civil cases) there is nothing in the article that makes it seem the motion will succeed.
Unfortunately I canât find the motion to dismiss so itâs hard to tell if there are any meritorious arguments.
If Alex Jones doesnât have a âreckless disregard for the truth,â I donât know who does.