pacecar02 said:

---

he also retracted his statements

Now apply the same to the media outlets that pushed the Russia collusion narrative


There has to be equal application of the law

---

Exactly... if it were equal justice based on damage done to individuals and our country:

• The media that pushed Russia Russia Russia for three years should be sued out of existence.
• Dr. Fauci, WHO, and CDC who caused businesses to close, people to lose their jobs, kids learning setback for years all based - none of it based on science - all should be in jail.
• The Jan 6 committee and the FBI should be sued by everyone thrown in Jail due to their lies and withholding truth. Nancy Pelosi should have to resign for not keeping the capital safe.
• [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_Mayorkas][/url]Alejandro Mayorkas should be jailed for the boarder.

I could keep going...

Im Gipper said:

---

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/

---

Nobody reading that would trust what BS they're peddling.

LMAO.

"For years, Alex Jones and InfoWars have shocked the world with malicious false statements about national tragedies, including the school shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Now, Farrar & Ball attorneys are helping the victims of those false statements fight back."

"Shocked"
"Malicious"
"False"
"Tragedies"

Come on, man. That's propaganda turned up to another level. You're smarter than that.

texagbeliever said:

---

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".

---

Disagree. It sounds like your freedom of speech is under no threat since there is zero chance you'd be going to jail.

ETA: however, if you have a giant audience and your comments result in that audience harassing the person/people your referencing (or in Jones' case, blatantly lying about) then you can probably expect similar civil issues.

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.

---

Not a fan of AJ but everything you said about AJ can equally be applied to the family, their attorneys and the jury. Two wrong don't make a right. A billion dollar judgement was a gross abuse of the legal system. While the family's are certainly victims and I can not and do not want to imagine the pain and suffering they went through, that doesn't excuse their support of gun control and lawfare used to extent it was against AJ. People can be victims of violent crime and slander and then go on to do things that are evil and unnecessary themselves. Their attorney's are ****ing scum bags and the jury was surely full of leftist loons.

The lawsuit sets out when the statements were allegedly made. If you don't want to believe they are true, that's certainly understandable.

Is it your position the statements were not made in 2017 as alleged?

peacedude said:

---

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?

---

1. Trump thing is a non-sequitur and deflection, and I'm not even going to entertain it.

2. This ignores the question. His defamation caused serious damages from his fans and listeners. If someone defamed you and called you a pedo or liar or whatever else repeatedly on public broadcasts and others took action on it, are you just going to ignore it because free speech or are you going to pursue damages against them?

3. Ignores why Jones apologized, which is because he was getting the **** sued out of him and he was being financially ruined. He didn't do it of his own accord because he felt bad and came to his senses. He did it because of the very judgements you're *****ing, so if anything all that does is support the fact they were justified and effective.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

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".

---

Disagree. It sounds like your freedom of speech is under no threat since there is zero chance you'd be going to jail.

ETA: however, if you have a giant audience and your comments result in that audience harassing the person/people your referencing (or in Jones' case, blatantly lying about) then you can probably expect similar civil issues.

---

So if the left fined everyone a Billion dollars for owning a gun then that wouldn't be a violation of the 2nd amendment because no one went to jail. Come on that must be a joke.

Ah so my freedom of speech is limited as long as no one is listening to me. That is an interesting take. Can you show me where in the first amendment it outlines different rules for the number of people can hear/see what I say/write?

Im Gipper said:

---

The lawsuit sets out when the statements were allegedly made. If you don't want to believe they are true, that's certainly understandable.

Is it your position the statements were not made in 2017 as alleged?

---

Give me the links to his show, or somebody else's show, where he said those things in 2017 or 2018. The internet surely has those recordings, so produce them.

He's annoying as F, so I don't care about his show being cancelled. But the disdain for the 1st amendment here is truly frightening.

texagbeliever said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

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".

---

Disagree. It sounds like your freedom of speech is under no threat since there is zero chance you'd be going to jail.

ETA: however, if you have a giant audience and your comments result in that audience harassing the person/people your referencing (or in Jones' case, blatantly lying about) then you can probably expect similar civil issues.

---

So if the left fined everyone a Billion dollars for owning a gun then that wouldn't be a violation of the 2nd amendment because no one went to jail. Come on that must be a joke.

Ah so my freedom of speech is limited as long as no one is listening to me. That is an interesting take. Can you show me where in the first amendment it outlines different rules for the number of people can hear/see what I say/write?

---

Can't believe you're still sticking with the gun analogy but he's not being fined for "owning a gun." He is being fined for pointing that "gun" at a specific group of people, resulting in his followers attacking them and causing, based on the opinion of a jury, damages.

And for the millionth time, the 1st amendment is not applicable here. No one is saying he should be arrested and he's free to say whatever he wants without any fear of legal repercussions. If what he says causes damages to other people, in the opinion of a judge/jury, then he should be ready to have to deal with the civil consequences. He knew this and chose to lie about them anyways.

The Shank Ag said:

---

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.

---

Exactly.

Note: there is a distinction between reporting or providing a forum for what other people are saying, and stating it as a matter of fact yourself.

Infowars is basically a combination of the Art Bell show and grocery store tabloid for libertarian type conspiracy theorists that distrust official narratives. It's an aggregator, not an originator of narratives. But, that is a crime or civil offense, if it doesn't serve progressive left causes.

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?

---

Exactly. I want money from Hillary for calling me deplorable.

This is just stupid.

Old McDonald said:

---

sometimes i lose perspective spending time here but seeing threads like these with people going to bat for aj after what he did to the SH families reminds me that there are a lot of deeply unserious and off the rails people here

---

Two wrongs do not make a right. Disagreeing with the excess judgement doesn't mean that people agree with AJs actions or words or even disagree that he was found liable. They might just disagree with the excess judgment awarded to the family designed to bankrupt AJ and his business.


For example, you might think that DJT's recent convictions were justified, but would not agree with him being executed as punishment. That would make you a reasonable human being; albeit, one with a difference of opinion versus most conservatives.

A reasonable human being would not conclude that a billion dollar judgement was justified here.

All the typical F16 legal geniuses are out and about on this thread.

No Spin Ag said:

---

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.

---

I would request you post the exact quotes from Jones rather than characterizing them, but generally agree on those specific comments he apologized for and certainly agree regarding the specific followers who harassed families.

This is happening to Alex Jones because he pissed off the judge in the case by repeatedly, over the course of years, refusing to comply with the court's orders for him to turn over discovery information.

It never really got around to "did Alex Jones do it or not".

And that is 100% on him.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

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.

---

I would request you post the exact quotes from Jones rather than characterizing them, but generally agree on those specific comments he apologized for and certainly agree regarding the specific followers who harassed families.

---

Are you saying that if I can't provide specific quotes that Alex didn't say the things he did about the murdered children or that threats weren't made to the parents of the murdered children after he had made comments that in a court of law he was found to have broken the law when he said them?

I barely know Alex exists, and all I recall is that he said things that got him into trouble and he was found guilty of saying things he wasn't supposed to say. I heard of the billion dollar settlement so on that day I was reminded that he wasn't dead. And now on this thread I'm reminded that he's still not dead.

Me my knowing what specific thing he said that got him to be found guilty in court doesn't change the fact that he was found guilty.

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.

---

If this question being adjudicated in a libtarded court then the answer is absolutely no.

vansprinkle said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

he also retracted his statements

Now apply the same to the media outlets that pushed the Russia collusion narrative


There has to be equal application of the law

---

He did the opposite of the MSM. He made a false statement and then almost immediately retracted it, over and over and over again.

Honestly this should set a precedent for anyone to sue the media anytime something false is said about them.

---

When did he immediately retract it?

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?

---

About $950 million. HTH

Alex Jones, a known conspiracy theorist speculated about the Sandy Hook incident a few times. He didn't originate the theory and he wasn't the one who continued to perpetuate it. He made dozens and dozens of corrections and disclaimers on his show after.


Is he guilty in some form of slander here? Maybe so, but the amount sought by the grifter families of the victims and the amount awarded by the jury and approved by the judge is an absolute joke. The Judge who handle the case is a fraud.

GeeBee 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?

---

About $950 million. HTH

---

To be fair Sandmann asked for about $1.25 billion in his defamation lawsuits.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2023/08/16/nick-sandmann-loses-appeal-in-defamation-suits-against-news-outlets/70605892007/

Quote:

---

. . .
Sandmann had sued Gannett for $195 million. In total, he was seeking $1.25 billion through the multiple lawsuits.
. . .

---

However the Defendants in those lawsuits chose litigate them (with some subsequently settling) rather than default and pillory the process. Turns out that was the better choice.

bobbranco said:

---

And Remington that had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting was gutted. Now tell me that's not some juicy lawfare. Those attorneys walked away with about $21 million for some of the victims of the deranged school shooter. It was not Remington or the idiot Alex Jones that pulled the gd trigger. The hypocrites in this world can't tell me that these are noble pursuits.

https://apnews.com/article/sandy-hook-school-shooting-remington-settlement-e53b95d398ee9b838afc06275a4df403

---

Remington did not pay a penny, and it was a lawfare against Remington. Also the case NEVER WENT TO TRIAL , the insurance companies settled. Remington has moved to a free state and is fine.

This was textbook lawfare meant to shut him up and anyone who dares question the narrative. Bye, bye First Amendment.

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

This was textbook lawfare meant to shut him up and anyone who dares question the narrative. Bye, bye First Amendment.

---

The slaughtered kids were practically a honey trap.

GeeBee 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?

---

About $950 million. HTH

---

I'll say it again. By this logic Sandmann is an incompetent grifter, hth. The "grifter" posters on this thread keep avoiding this.

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

This was textbook lawfare meant to shut him up and anyone who dares question the narrative. Bye, bye First Amendment.

---

This is a textbook idiotic comment. What was the narrative? Was there something other than a bunch of kids were murdered by a psychopath that got a hold of his mom's weapon? I must have missed the msm and Dem spin on this one.

edit- I'm speaking only to the lawsuit against Alex Jones.

If you take Jones' theory that the parents were all crisis actors then you can say it's basically the government/Deep State bringing the civil suits rather than actual parents.

You can say it on the show anyway.

Faustus said:

---

If you take Jones' theory that the parents were all crisis actors then you can say it's basically the government/Deep State bringing the civil suits rather than actual parents.

You can say it on the show anyway.

---

That is certainly the kind of circular logic he and his followers would subscribe to...

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Faustus said:

---

If you take Jones' theory that the parents were all crisis actors then you can say it's basically the government/Deep State bringing the civil suits rather than actual parents.

You can say it on the show anyway.

---

That is certainly the kind of circular logic he and his followers would subscribe to...

---

Jones won his 1st Amendment case. Just thought you should know.

peacedude said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Faustus said:

---

If you take Jones' theory that the parents were all crisis actors then you can say it's basically the government/Deep State bringing the civil suits rather than actual parents.

You can say it on the show anyway.

---

That is certainly the kind of circular logic he and his followers would subscribe to...

---

Jones won his 1st Amendment case. Just thought you should know.

---

This was never about the first amendment. That's why he's liquidating everything he has to pay off all the lawsuits he lost. Just thought you should know.