Faustus said:

---

captkirk said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I'll ask again. Is Nicholas Sandmann a grifter?

If not, what's the difference between his lawsuit and the Sandy Hook families' lawsuit?

---

He didn't get a Billion dollars

---

They're not getting a billion dollars either. Not anywhere close to it.

Here's what he offered to pay:
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/16/1219848695/alex-jones-sandy-hook-victims-families-settle

Quote:

---

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is asking the families of the victims in the Dec. 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. to accept a minimum settlement of $5.5 million a year for 10 years (or $55 million in total), with more possible depending on Jones' income. The families who accept the deal would have to give up all legal claims against Jones or any related party.
. . .
According to a recent article in Fortune Magazine, Jones has a net worth of around $14 million. "His personal spending topped $93,000 in July alone, including thousands of dollars on meals and entertainment," the article said. "His assets include a home worth $2.6 million, a $2.2 million ranch, a $1.8 million lake house, a $500,000 rental property, and four vehicles and two boats worth more than $330,000 in total."
. . .

---

They probably should take something along those lines rather than chase this guy forever. However maybe that's what they want to do.

---

You know better.

An offer =/= judgement.

Im Gipper said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

Bryan Stelter referred to the sum as "nuisance money"

---

Steltzer has no idea, and its clear he did not know.

Sandmann's attorney showed the light:

This retweet by @brianstelter may have cost him his job at @CNN. It is called breach of confidentiality agreement. Brian Stelter is a liar. I know how to deal with liars. pic.twitter.com/1VHxby9gim

— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) July 27, 2020

---

I don't mean to derail, but you're putting your faith in Lin Wood speaking the truth.

Im Gipper said:

---

captkirk said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I'll ask again. Is Nicholas Sandmann a grifter?

If not, what's the difference between his lawsuit and the Sandy Hook families' lawsuit?

---

He didn't get a Billion dollars

---

At this point, Sandmann has gotten more than these parents have.

---

They won the lottery with Remington.

And the lawyers received more than any individual family.

Sandy Hook was never a hoax...but to this day, I can kind of see how conspiracy theories of "crisis actors" were fueled by Robbie Parker's chuckling as he approached the presser podium. I cannot even begin to imagine a world where my 5 yr old daughter was just mowed down by a crazed gunman less than 24 hours before, and I approach the media like I'm coming out to present the green jacket.

I do not believe he was an actor...I can just see how that would pour fuel on the fire for the crazies who dabble in these theories. I guess everyone grieves in their own way, but this will never not be a head scratcher to me...

bobbranco said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

captkirk said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I'll ask again. Is Nicholas Sandmann a grifter?

If not, what's the difference between his lawsuit and the Sandy Hook families' lawsuit?

---

He didn't get a Billion dollars

---

At this point, Sandmann has gotten more than these parents have.

---

They won the lottery with Remington.

---

I think they'd rather have their kids back

Faustus said:

---

captkirk said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I'll ask again. Is Nicholas Sandmann a grifter?

If not, what's the difference between his lawsuit and the Sandy Hook families' lawsuit?

---

He didn't get a Billion dollars

---

They're not getting a billion dollars either. Not anywhere close to it.

Here's what he offered to pay:
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/16/1219848695/alex-jones-sandy-hook-victims-families-settle

Quote:

---

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is asking the families of the victims in the Dec. 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. to accept a minimum settlement of $5.5 million a year for 10 years (or $55 million in total), with more possible depending on Jones' income. The families who accept the deal would have to give up all legal claims against Jones or any related party.
. . .
According to a recent article in Fortune Magazine, Jones has a net worth of around $14 million. "His personal spending topped $93,000 in July alone, including thousands of dollars on meals and entertainment," the article said. "His assets include a home worth $2.6 million, a $2.2 million ranch, a $1.8 million lake house, a $500,000 rental property, and four vehicles and two boats worth more than $330,000 in total."
. . .

---

They probably should take something along those lines rather than chase this guy forever. However maybe that's what they want to do.

---

That proposal sounds more than fair

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

captkirk said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I'll ask again. Is Nicholas Sandmann a grifter?

If not, what's the difference between his lawsuit and the Sandy Hook families' lawsuit?

---

He didn't get a Billion dollars

---

At this point, Sandmann has gotten more than these parents have.

---

They won the lottery with Remington.

---

I think they'd rather have their kids back

---

Yes. Agreed.

Again Jones and Remington did not shoot those kids.

Burdizzo said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

What monetary or property damages did the families suffer by Alex Jones being an obnoxious, insufferable, asshat?

Does this mean I can sue Rachel Maddow for the same thing?

---

Did she make a **** ton of money lying about your murdered children and causing unhinged morons to harass you about it? If so then go for it.

---

Show me on paper where Alex Jones made $1B, if that is how we are going to assess the damage.

---

Damages should be what the jury decides they are based on the factors of the individual case. Not sure where you're getting that I think it should just be based on how much money he made.

Again, this is a clear example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. He knew he was lying and knew it was resulting in his audience harassing the families and chose to continue.

---

Your point was that they both make money by lying. Everyone lies. What is the difference between a white lie and one worth $1B?

Alex Jones didnt inflict pain and suffering by making the gun or pulling the trigger, just a reminder.

---

So sue Rachel Maddow then. Nothing is stopping you.

He didn't pull the trigger but he certainly inflicted pain and suffering on the families by blatantly lying about the murder of elementary school children, which he knew was true, solely in an effort to make as much money as possible. Just a reminder of who you're defending.

---

I am not defending a person

I am defending a concept that people should be allowed to say stupid stuff, even stupid stuff that make people cry. Example, Forum 16.

We have an instance where someone fabricated a document that was a blatant lie about a political candidate, and the media ran with it. Few of them have ever acknowledged the falsehood, unlike Alex Jones.

What is the standard for lying?

---

People can lie or say stupid stuff all they want to. No one is saying Jones should have been arrested. However when that stupid stuff results in damages to someone else, based on the opinion of a judge/jury when that person decides to bring a claim, there will be consequences.

If someone wants to sue Rachel Maddow or anyone in the media for lying they are welcome to do so. They will have to prove damages just like the families did.

Throughout all of this I think about who I should feel bad for.

The parents who buried their murdered children or an online content creator who may go bankrupt.

It's tough.

Pookers said:

---

Cheerleading lawfare.

---

Nope. This is not it.

Elder_LarryII said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

What monetary or property damages did the families suffer by Alex Jones being an obnoxious, insufferable, asshat?

Does this mean I can sue Rachel Maddow for the same thing?

---

File suit in a political landscape that favors you and you will win

---

Throw that boy into the big CNN re-education camp!

Jeeper79 said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Cheerleading lawfare.

---

Terrible take. This isn't a left vs right issue. This is a right vs wrong issue. Dare I say, a good vs evil issue. And Alex Jones is NOT the good guy, here.

Just because you might agree with a guy on some stuff doesn't make that person right everywhere else or even good. Some people just do crappy things to others and thankfully they sometimes have to account for it.

---

This is a question of law, not what is right or wrong in your opinion. You can hate AJ, but his comments sure seem to be protected first amendment speech.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

What monetary or property damages did the families suffer by Alex Jones being an obnoxious, insufferable, asshat?

Does this mean I can sue Rachel Maddow for the same thing?

---

Did she make a **** ton of money lying about your murdered children and causing unhinged morons to harass you about it? If so then go for it.

---

Show me on paper where Alex Jones made $1B, if that is how we are going to assess the damage.

---

Damages should be what the jury decides they are based on the factors of the individual case. Not sure where you're getting that I think it should just be based on how much money he made.

Again, this is a clear example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. He knew he was lying and knew it was resulting in his audience harassing the families and chose to continue.

---

Your point was that they both make money by lying. Everyone lies. What is the difference between a white lie and one worth $1B?

Alex Jones didnt inflict pain and suffering by making the gun or pulling the trigger, just a reminder.

---

So sue Rachel Maddow then. Nothing is stopping you.

He didn't pull the trigger but he certainly inflicted pain and suffering on the families by blatantly lying about the murder of elementary school children, which he knew was true, solely in an effort to make as much money as possible. Just a reminder of who you're defending.

---

I am not defending a person

I am defending a concept that people should be allowed to say stupid stuff, even stupid stuff that make people cry. Example, Forum 16.

We have an instance where someone fabricated a document that was a blatant lie about a political candidate, and the media ran with it. Few of them have ever acknowledged the falsehood, unlike Alex Jones.

What is the standard for lying?

---

People can lie or say stupid stuff all they want to. No one is saying Jones should have been arrested. However when that stupid stuff results in damages to someone else, based on the opinion of a judge/jury when that person decides to bring a claim, there will be consequences.

If someone wants to sue Rachel Maddow or anyone in the media for lying they are welcome to do so. They will have to prove damages just like the families did.

---

Sorry but even the fact that people have to occur legal costs for what they say should be considered on some levels a threat to the freedom of speech.

Oh you can say whatever you want, but another side can hire lawyers and force you to spend millions defending yourself or you can go bankrupt. That to me violates his first amendment right. Because it threatens everyone else's first amendment rights.

1939 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Cheerleading lawfare.

---

Terrible take. This isn't a left vs right issue. This is a right vs wrong issue. Dare I say, a good vs evil issue. And Alex Jones is NOT the good guy, here.

Just because you might agree with a guy on some stuff doesn't make that person right everywhere else or even good. Some people just do crappy things to others and thankfully they sometimes have to account for it.

---

This is a question of law, not what is right or wrong in your opinion. You can hate AJ, but his comments sure seem to be protected first amendment speech.

---

Well, if he started calling you a pedo and CPS decided to take your kids or people started stalking you and showing up to your front door to harass you, would you just let it go because his statements are "protected?"

93MarineHorn said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Elder_LarryII said:

---

Still don't get how his crazy ramblings were illegal , he hurt peoples feelings ? Lol

---

He stepped over the line and slandered people who had their children murdered. It was absolutely despicable.

---

I'm no fan of Alex Jones but you have no clue what slander is

---

1. : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation. 2. : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person.

This is the definition and seems to fit this scenario. What did I get wrong?

---

Okay in order to defame someone you have to first personally target them as an identified individual. In other words tweeting or podcasting or whatever in generalities such as claiming Sandy Hook was a false flag job by the government to incite division and go after the 2nd amendment. Claiming that there were crisis actors involved etc etc etc isn't personally defaming an individual or group of individuals. Was it in bad taste sure it was, did it hurt peoples feelings absolutely . Was he an asshat for doing it. Positively yes. But that's not necessarily defamation.

"Freedom of speech" has never protected defamation.

Before the Leftist Warren Court came along, it was much easier for everyone to sue for defamation.

texagbeliever said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

What monetary or property damages did the families suffer by Alex Jones being an obnoxious, insufferable, asshat?

Does this mean I can sue Rachel Maddow for the same thing?

---

Did she make a **** ton of money lying about your murdered children and causing unhinged morons to harass you about it? If so then go for it.

---

Show me on paper where Alex Jones made $1B, if that is how we are going to assess the damage.

---

Damages should be what the jury decides they are based on the factors of the individual case. Not sure where you're getting that I think it should just be based on how much money he made.

Again, this is a clear example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. He knew he was lying and knew it was resulting in his audience harassing the families and chose to continue.

---

Your point was that they both make money by lying. Everyone lies. What is the difference between a white lie and one worth $1B?

Alex Jones didnt inflict pain and suffering by making the gun or pulling the trigger, just a reminder.

---

So sue Rachel Maddow then. Nothing is stopping you.

He didn't pull the trigger but he certainly inflicted pain and suffering on the families by blatantly lying about the murder of elementary school children, which he knew was true, solely in an effort to make as much money as possible. Just a reminder of who you're defending.

---

I am not defending a person

I am defending a concept that people should be allowed to say stupid stuff, even stupid stuff that make people cry. Example, Forum 16.

We have an instance where someone fabricated a document that was a blatant lie about a political candidate, and the media ran with it. Few of them have ever acknowledged the falsehood, unlike Alex Jones.

What is the standard for lying?

---

People can lie or say stupid stuff all they want to. No one is saying Jones should have been arrested. However when that stupid stuff results in damages to someone else, based on the opinion of a judge/jury when that person decides to bring a claim, there will be consequences.

If someone wants to sue Rachel Maddow or anyone in the media for lying they are welcome to do so. They will have to prove damages just like the families did.

---

Sorry but even the fact that people have to occur legal costs for what they say should be considered on some levels a threat to the freedom of speech.

Oh you can say whatever you want, but another side can hire lawyers and force you to spend millions defending yourself or you can go bankrupt. That to me violates his first amendment right. Because it threatens everyone else's first amendment rights.

---

You don't know what you are talking about

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

1939 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Cheerleading lawfare.

---

Terrible take. This isn't a left vs right issue. This is a right vs wrong issue. Dare I say, a good vs evil issue. And Alex Jones is NOT the good guy, here.

Just because you might agree with a guy on some stuff doesn't make that person right everywhere else or even good. Some people just do crappy things to others and thankfully they sometimes have to account for it.

---

This is a question of law, not what is right or wrong in your opinion. You can hate AJ, but his comments sure seem to be protected first amendment speech.

---

Well, if he started calling you a pedo and CPS decided to take your kids or people started stalking you and showing up to your front door to harass you, would you just let it go because his statements are "protected?"

---

A random chick had a dream where Trump raped her, and somehow-someway, she won an $83,000,000+ lawsuit against him without even being able to say where or when it supposedly happened.

Jones apologized as some poster articulated earlier, but holy cow - kill him kill him kill him, for having a dumba** take...which he rescinded months (not years) later?

Im Gipper said:

---

"Freedom of speech" has never protected defamation.

Before the Leftist Warren Court came along, it was much easier for everyone to sue for defamation.

---

I never said it did. But the risk of using Free Speech can't be so exorbitant that it limits someone's free speech.

Let us say you had the right to own a gun. But if that gun was ever pointed at someone they could sue you for $10MM. Well you still legally have the right to own a gun, but practically your ability to exercise that right is severely limited. Thus it violates the 2nd amendment.

You can't just defend the first amendment you also have to defend against the risk of a person misusing the first amendment as well. This judgement clearly violates that.

Another thread in which some "republicans" are in lock step with our most die hard liberals. Shocking...

You aren't making much sense

Defamation isn't free speech. Judgments for defamation don't threaten free speech


Frivolous lawsuits claiming defamation DO threaten free speech. It's why we need laws protecting people from frivolous claims!

Our justice system is a joke.

Quote:

---

A random chick had a dream where Trump raped her, and somehow-someway, she won an $83,000,000+ lawsuit against him without even being able to say where or when it supposedly happened.

---

An egregious first amendment violation. If a person can't defend themselves from false accusations, then there is no freedom in this world.

Quote:

---

Jones apologized as some poster articulated earlier, but holy cow - kill him kill him kill him, for having a dumba** take...which he rescinded months (not years) later?

---

Why do you keep leaving out that Jones made the claims again in 2017?

Im Gipper said:

---

Defamation isn't free speech. Judgments for defamation don't threaten free speech

---

This is simply not true. This verdict was given based on subjective damages and falsehood. If it was purely objective that would be different.

texagbeliever said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

"Freedom of speech" has never protected defamation.

Before the Leftist Warren Court came along, it was much easier for everyone to sue for defamation.

---

I never said it did. But the risk of using Free Speech can't be so exorbitant that it limits someone's free speech.

Let us say you had the right to own a gun. But if that gun was ever pointed at someone they could sue you for $10MM. Well you still legally have the right to own a gun, but practically your ability to exercise that right is severely limited. Thus it violates the 2nd amendment.

You can't just defend the first amendment you also have to defend against the risk of a person misusing the first amendment as well. This judgement clearly violates that.

---

Uh, it's already illegal to point a gun at someone. That in no way infringes on your right to own a gun. Just like Jones can say whatever he wants to until it starts to damage others.

It's ok to think the judgement against Jones was a mockery of the justice system

AND

Think that Jones is an absolute idiot and bad human being.

Spotted Ag said:

---

Our justice system is a joke.

---

Because our nation's moral compass was broken by abandonment of Christian principles.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

"Freedom of speech" has never protected defamation.

Before the Leftist Warren Court came along, it was much easier for everyone to sue for defamation.

---

I never said it did. But the risk of using Free Speech can't be so exorbitant that it limits someone's free speech.

Let us say you had the right to own a gun. But if that gun was ever pointed at someone they could sue you for $10MM. Well you still legally have the right to own a gun, but practically your ability to exercise that right is severely limited. Thus it violates the 2nd amendment.

You can't just defend the first amendment you also have to defend against the risk of a person misusing the first amendment as well. This judgement clearly violates that.

---

Uh, it's already illegal to point a gun at someone. That in no way infringes on your right to own a gun. Just like Jones can say whatever he wants to until it starts to damage others.

---

So if i misgender someone. It is damaging to them. I am on the hook to owe them billions?

Why do you not link to your proof(s)?

I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong, so give me 2-3 links where he kept perpetuating the lie (up through 2018). Tucker is still going strong in his current interview, and Sandy Hook hasn't even been mentioned after 67 minutes.

texagbeliever said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

"Freedom of speech" has never protected defamation.

Before the Leftist Warren Court came along, it was much easier for everyone to sue for defamation.

---

I never said it did. But the risk of using Free Speech can't be so exorbitant that it limits someone's free speech.

Let us say you had the right to own a gun. But if that gun was ever pointed at someone they could sue you for $10MM. Well you still legally have the right to own a gun, but practically your ability to exercise that right is severely limited. Thus it violates the 2nd amendment.

You can't just defend the first amendment you also have to defend against the risk of a person misusing the first amendment as well. This judgement clearly violates that.

---

Uh, it's already illegal to point a gun at someone. That in no way infringes on your right to own a gun. Just like Jones can say whatever he wants to until it starts to damage others.

---

So if i misgender someone. It is damaging to them. I am on the hook to owe them billions?

---

Would be up to a judge/jury if that person actually decided to sue you, but in your hyperbolic example it seems extremely unlikely someone would be able to prove any damages, much less "billions."

The links are not to "proof". They are to what was alleged in the lawsuits. We discussed this when you asked previously why the family waited so long to sue!


The lawsuits can all be found here:

https://infowarslawsuit.com/

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

Our justice system is a joke.

---

Because our nation's moral compass was broken by abandonment of Christian principles.

---

And how Alex Jones and his supporters acted and said about the murdering of those children is very much in the un-Christian column as one could get.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

"Freedom of speech" has never protected defamation.

Before the Leftist Warren Court came along, it was much easier for everyone to sue for defamation.

---

I never said it did. But the risk of using Free Speech can't be so exorbitant that it limits someone's free speech.

Let us say you had the right to own a gun. But if that gun was ever pointed at someone they could sue you for $10MM. Well you still legally have the right to own a gun, but practically your ability to exercise that right is severely limited. Thus it violates the 2nd amendment.

You can't just defend the first amendment you also have to defend against the risk of a person misusing the first amendment as well. This judgement clearly violates that.

---

Uh, it's already illegal to point a gun at someone. That in no way infringes on your right to own a gun. Just like Jones can say whatever he wants to until it starts to damage others.

---

So if i misgender someone. It is damaging to them. I am on the hook to owe them billions?

---

Would be up to a judge/jury if that person actually decided to sue you, but in your hyperbolic example it seems extremely unlikely someone would be able to prove any damages, much less "billions."

---

Fantastic. So clearly through the guise of defamation my right to free speech is under threat. That is a clear problem. This was a purely subjective case. As such defamation should have severe limits when the judgement is based on subjective damages and to a an extent subjective "truths".