Alex Jones must pay up for his hoax claims BS

[jimnyc]

And I'm glad too. Can you imagine having your child killed at such an age, and then having someone like this POS repeat over and over again that it was a hoax? Or that somehow some were in on it? Now, how much and when will he pay up?

With his many problems in front of him, I have a sneaky suspicion that in a few years this dumb ass will be in jail somewhere.

---

Connecticut judge orders Infowars’ Alex Jones to pay damages to families of Sandy Hook shooting victims in defamation lawsuits

A Connecticut judge has ruled conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is responsible for all damages in the defamation lawsuits brought against him by the families of those killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting after his repeated claims that the Newtown massacre was a hoax.

Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis issued a default in the lawsuits Monday morning after years of what she found to be inappropriate conduct by Jones’ attorneys regarding depositions and the “callous disregard of their obligation” to turn over financial and web analytics data as ordered by the court.

The default is the most severe sanction Bellis could issue, ruling in favor of the Sandy Hook families and sending the case directly to a jury to award damages without the much-anticipated civil trial.

“Mr. Jones is very used to saying whatever he wants to say from the comfort of his own studio, but what I think this case has shown is that when he is forced to defend his conduct in a court of law and comply with court orders, that it’s a very different ballgame,” said attorney Chris Mattei, a lawyer representing the Sandy Hook families. “The fact that the court was left with no choice but to default him shows just how unwilling Mr. Jones was to have his conduct exposed to the light of day in front of a jury.”

Rest - https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-sandy-hook-lawsuit-alex-jones-hearing-20211115-ccie6kyugrcenm5pjrje7xswk4-story.html

[tailfins]

Alex Jones is a clown. I don't think he should be punished for being a clown, but everyone should recognize him as someone not to be taken seriously.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f_DPrSEOEo

[jimnyc]

Alex Jones is a clown. I don't think he should be punished for being a clown, but everyone should recognize him as someone not to be taken seriously.

Well, it's one thing to be a clown on his show, and another when his opinions on politics and such are a little bit out there - but when he starts either making up lies about what took place in politics - or worse - starts lying about the killings and deaths of 20 children - and defames parents and others, then he deserves everything he has coming to him.

[revelarts]

Well, it's one thing to be a clown on his show, and another when his opinions on politics and such are a little bit out there - but when he starts either making up lies about what took place in politics - or worse - starts lying about the killings and deaths of 20 children - and defames parents and others, then he deserves everything he has coming to him.

I hear you but here's the problem with that. I'm no lawyer but it seems like it sets a GEREAL precedent.
A precedent that CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Gateway pundit, OAN, NPR, Beitbart, Rush Limbaugh, or any other news org MUCH less your favorite or less favorite politicians and smaller media and public figures wouldn't be subject to.

I'm sure the families suffered but I'm not sure that suing media and polticains for "lies" is a standard the country can stand. Especially in this crazy climate of "I'm a woman because I say i'm a woman." and "safe spaces" BS.
Everyone will have the option to sue for "pain and suffering".

I don't know the detail of the Jones case but Free speech IS for everyone including the speech we don't like.
Unless we're just pretending (sigh again) that we believe in the bill of rights and free speech.

[jimnyc]

I hear you but here's the problem with that. I'm no lawyer but it seems like it sets a GEREAL precedent.
A precedent that CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Gateway pundit, OAN, NPR, Beitbart, Rush Limbaugh, or any other news org MUCH less your favorite or less favorite politicians and smaller media and public figures wouldn't be subject to.

I'm sure the families suffered but I'm not sure that suing media and polticains for "lies" is a standard the country can stand. Especially in this crazy climate of "I'm a woman because I say i'm a woman." and "safe spaces" BS.
Everyone will have the option to sue for "pain and suffering".

I don't know the detail of the Jones case but Free speech IS for everyone including the speech we don't like.
Unless we're just pretending (sigh again) that we believe in the bill of rights and free speech.

A defamation case isn't an easy case to make. It's not just a matter of saying that someone lied on the news or radio. For starters, if I recall correctly, someone would need to prove the suffering of damages of some type as a result of what was said AND also, and important - is whether or not the person being spoke of is a public figure or not. Outside of the basics I am far from a lawyer and don't know defamation laws nor how it applies to the press.

That said, I agree with you in principal. The news media certainly doesn't need to be shut down every time someone has hurt feelings. But it's not often that the news media will be mentioning or discussion public individuals, and even less will they then lie or defame them in some way.

[revelarts]

Here's the kind of thing that's going on
Project Veritas, Assange, and the Authoritarian Decree of Who Is a "Real Journalist"

https://rumble.com/vp9ozz-project-veritas-assange-and-the-authoritarian-decrees-of-who-is-and-is-not-.html


Alex jones is again kind of a canary in the coal mine.
He's been vilified and mocked as an outlier by lots of people so he's an easy political target.
And the same way he was one of the 1st to be banned by social media and people CHEERED. but then when they Banned Trump somehow people where shocked. I'm not sure why? they banned Jones because they didn't like what he said. They banned Trump because they didn't like what he said.

We can't lightly or emotionally play with our free speech using censorship or law suits, it burns everyone.

[fj1200]

We can't lightly or emotionally play with our free speech using censorship or law suits, it burns everyone.

Defamation is not free speech.

[icansayit]

defamation is not free speech.


all speech is 'free speech'.

[Gunny]

Defamation is not free speech.Why?

Seems to me it is. It also seems to be rather selective since it doesn't include anyone on the left. Look at the crap Pelosi or Schiff said about Trump for 4 years, as example. An argument can be made as to who defamed Trump's reputation the most, but it appears no one on the left is being held accountable for a daily, non-stop barrage of false accusations against him.

What is "Russian collusion" if not a hoax?

I'm just curious as to who draws the line where.

[fj1200]

all speech is 'free speech'.



Why?

Seems to me it is. It also seems to be rather selective since it doesn't include anyone on the left. Look at the crap Pelosi or Schiff said about Trump for 4 years, as example. An argument can be made as to who defamed Trump's reputation the most, but it appears no one on the left is being held accountable for a daily, non-stop barrage of false accusations against him.

What is "Russian collusion" if not a hoax?

I'm just curious as to who draws the line where.

There are limits on freedom of speech. Libel, slander, yelling fire in a theater... I didn't think it was really up for question. Specifics can certainly be argued. :martian:

If trump, or anyone for that matter, is defamed then they can sue for damages. trump would have issues being a public figure however.

[Gunny]

There are limits on freedom of speech. Libel, slander, yelling fire in a theater... I didn't think it was really up for question. Specifics can certainly be argued. :martian:

If trump, or anyone for that matter, is defamed then they can sue for damages. trump would have issues being a public figure however.I was aware of certain limits to free speech that used to exist. Those limits appear to apply currently only to the right.

If such standards still existed, I don't see why they would not apply as equally to a public figure as anyone else. There's a thread somewhere on here about Schiff not regretting one bit he just flat out lied. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable, in MY opinion. To go further, I really despise all this lack of civility and it doesn't matter from which side it's coming. There's just no call for it.

Selective accountability doesn't work for me either.

[fj1200]

I was aware of certain limits to free speech that used to exist. Those limits appear to apply currently only to the right.

If such standards still existed, I don't see why they would not apply as equally to a public figure as anyone else. There's a thread somewhere on here about Schiff not regretting one bit he just flat out lied. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable, in MY opinion. To go further, I really despise all this lack of civility and it doesn't matter from which side it's coming. There's just no call for it.

Selective accountability doesn't work for me either.

No disagreement here. The bulk of the issues you bring up, and I agree with, can just be rolled up into the craptastic MSM we have. I roll much of it into the 24 hour news cycle that magnifies 1 hours worth of actual news.

[revelarts]

Defamation is not free speech.

2 things are at play free speech and freedom of the press.
as far as "defamation" is concerned I'm not a lawyer but from a couple of law dictionaries we see:

Defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=458

Defamation
The taking from one’s reputation (https://thelawdictionary.org/reputation/). The offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The term seems to be comprehensive of both libel and slander. Printing Co. v. Moulden, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 574,41 S. W. 381; Moore v. Francis, 121 N. Y. 199, 23 N. E. 1127, 8 L. R. A. 214, 18 Am. St.Rep. 810; Hollenbeck v. Hall, 103 Iowa, 214, 72 N. W. 518, 39 L. R. A. 734, 04 Am. St.Rep. 175; Mouat v. Snyder, 105 Iowa, 500, 75 N. W. 350.

At its core, defamation is a catch-all term used to describe a statement that unjustly hurts someone’s reputation. Libel is the written form of a statement that hurts someone’s reputation while slander is the spoken form, but with the advent of the internet, things can get a little more complicated than that.

What Do You Have To Prove For Defamation?
First of all, you have to prove the statement was an intentional misrepresentation or lie. With slander (verbal defamation,) things get a little tricker. Of course, a key portion is that you have to prove – beyond a reasonable doubt – that this person actually said what you’re claiming they said.
The trickiest part for libel lies in the second portion: proving that the defamatory statement was intended with actual malice. An untrue statement, to be considered defamatory, needs to be said with the intentional misrepresentation of facts with the intention to cause you harm. IE: The person needs to be knowingly lying while knowing this lie will cause you harm.

Proving Harm
Most lawyers will tell you this is the most challenging part of the process. First, understand that there is a clear difference between a statement having the potential to cause you harm and a statement actually causing you harm.
It is only considered defamation of character if the statement has caused you harm already, not if it has the potential to cause you harm. This is a tricky line to walk for the court and a frustrating one for many people who are looking to prevent damage. But the court cannot act on something that might happen unless there’s proof that something has already happened. IE: if you’ve already seen negative effects, you’ll likely see more if this went unchecked. If you haven’t, there’s a chance you may never see any negatives as a result of the slander or libel.
In order to win the claim, you are going to need to prove that the false statement has ruined your reputation. If you are a business owner, for example, you would need to prove how the statement has had a devastating impact on your business.

Dealing With Slander, Libel, & Defamation
When libelous and slanderous statements are made in public, the affected party should seek a retraction before filing a complaint in court. If there is evidence of the alleged defamer refusing to retract the statements, it would be easier to win the case in court. But what does “winning” a defamation case look like?
For compensation, the court must decide on the amount of “reasonable of injury.” For example, if a politician feels defamed by statements that attempt to connect her with criminal organizations, the court will consider that people in the public eye should expect that sort of circumstance. This damage would likely be considered lesser – if damaging at all.
In most cases involving defamation of character, the court will seek a resolution that is both uncomplicated and respectful of the First Amendment. This could mean accepting a retraction from the respondent published in the newspaper of record.
https://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-do-you-prove-a-defamation-of-character-claim/

Seems the bar is fairly high (could be higher IMO).
As far as the parents case goes I'm not sure how they'll play it.
Was Alex Jones intentionally lying with the intent to harm the parents?
you guess is as good as mine.
I'd hate to try and prove it.

[fj1200]

2 things are at play free speech and freedom of the press.
as far as "defamation" is concerned I'm not a lawyer but from a couple of law dictionaries we see:

...


Seems the bar is fairly high (could be higher IMO).
As far as the parents case goes I'm not sure how they'll play it.
Was Alex Jones intentionally lying with the intent to harm the parents?
you guess is as good as mine.
I'd hate to try and prove it.

You're not putting Alex Jones on the freedom of the press side of things are you? I would argue with that.

But I think you're right that there are a lot of questions regarding this particular case and circumstances. But overall I would say society has decided via passed laws where the line should be drawn. It is what it is and I wouldn't choose this hill to die on.

[icansayit]

The U.S. SUPREME court has ruled ALL SPEECH is according to the First Amendment, which also means... When POLITICIANS in CONGRESS or the WHITE HOUSE Tell lies. That is FREE SPEECH and permissible.
LIBEL and SLANDER are also FREE SPEECH but they have Legal Consequences. Just like someone WHO THREATENS THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE.

BUT...the bottom line is ALL SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH with one exception. YELLING FIRE.
I didn't make any of this up. I just follow the Constitution, and you can Insist anything you want. The FIRST AMENDMENT is broad and covers everything the way the Founders wanted it.

[revelarts]

You're not putting Alex Jones on the freedom of the press side of things are you? I would argue with that.

Absolutely, i am.
There are no legal "credentials" to qualify as "the press". Anyone who publishes information is "the press".
The "freedom of press" was put into the bill of rights because the Crown had imposed rules on who could or couldn't publish.
Some wouldn't consider CNN or FOX "the press" either.
I'm not sure what criteria you're planning on using to exclude him.



But I think you're right that there are a lot of questions regarding this particular case and circumstances. But overall I would say society has decided via passed laws where the line should be drawn. It is what it is and I wouldn't choose this hill to die on.

as i mentioned Jones is a canary in the coal mine. He got banned from social media then others then it was the president of the U.S..
not sure what metaphors are best at this point.
That Frog is boiling faster and faster.
That slippery slope on that hill has been greased FJ, makes it hard to stand and fight. Very easy to die before you know it though.

[fj1200]

Absolutely, i am.
There are no legal "credentials" to qualify as "the press". Anyone who publishes information is "the press".
The "freedom of press" was put into the bill of rights because the Crown had imposed rules on who could or couldn't publish.
Some wouldn't consider CNN or FOX "the press" either.
I'm not sure what criteria you're planning on using to exclude him.



as i mentioned Jones is a canary in the coal mine. He got banned from social media then others then it was the president of the U.S..
not sure what metaphors are best at this point.
That Frog is boiling faster and faster.
That slippery slope on that hill has been greased FJ, makes it hard to stand and fight. Very easy to die before you know it though.

I think he excludes himself:


This week, Jones acknowledged the shooting was real during a sworn deposition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XES-AydpIoc) he made as part of a defamation case brought against him by Sandy Hook victims’ families.“And I, myself, have almost had like a form of psychosis back in the past where I basically thought everything was staged, even though I’ve now learned a lot of times things aren’t staged,” he said. “So I think as a pundit, someone giving an opinion, that, you know, my opinions have been wrong, but they were never wrong consciously to hurt people.”
He said it was the “trauma of the media and the corporations lying so much” that caused him to distrust everything, “kind of like a child whose parents lie to them over and over again.”
“So long before these lawsuits I said that in the past I thought everything was a conspiracy and I would kind of get into that mass group think of the communities that were out saying that,” he said. “And so now I see that it’s more in the middle… so that’s where I stand.”

He doesn't really publish information. Not only is what he published provably false it was ridiculous to "publish" in the first place. He isn't being sued under any sort of new law, it's law that's been standing for years. He still has freedom of speech, it's just not absolute for him like it's not absolute for everyone.

[jimnyc]

Why?

Seems to me it is. It also seems to be rather selective since it doesn't include anyone on the left. Look at the crap Pelosi or Schiff said about Trump for 4 years, as example. An argument can be made as to who defamed Trump's reputation the most, but it appears no one on the left is being held accountable for a daily, non-stop barrage of false accusations against him.

What is "Russian collusion" if not a hoax?

I'm just curious as to who draws the line where.

In most cases that would be more than true - Trump is/was a public figure turned politician, which sets the defamation laws differently towards him and allows for such.

[jimnyc]

Absolutely, i am.
There are no legal "credentials" to qualify as "the press". Anyone who publishes information is "the press".
The "freedom of press" was put into the bill of rights because the Crown had imposed rules on who could or couldn't publish.
Some wouldn't consider CNN or FOX "the press" either.
I'm not sure what criteria you're planning on using to exclude him.

Let me preface and say that my showing support of the law in no way means that I am supporting or defending Alex or anyone else.

There is simply a difference when it comes to how folks can speak about a private person & compared to a public official/figure. I don't fully agree with this but that's how it is.

This website sums it up nicely. It's a little more advanced than a few paragraphs though. They say it could be $10-20k just to bring such a decent case to court. And not always easy to prove. But on paper, this explains it best.

--

Defamation—Public Official vs. Private Person

The distinction between the rights of a private person and the privacy rights of a public person is significant when considering a defamation claim. People who remove themselves from the private arena by becoming a public official or public figure do not give up all rights to privacy. However, there are specific restrictions applied to defamation claims with regard to someone who holds public office or chooses to be in the public eye.

The Public Arena

According to many courts, a public official is a government employee who has, or appears to the public to have, a significant role in the business of government and public affairs. Such people are considered to be held in a position that would draw or even demand public scrutiny. They also are considered to have significant ability to defend themselves regarding such public scrutiny and therefore cannot claim defamation unless the statement is not only proven to be false, but the defamer is proven to have shown reckless disregard for that falsity. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.

This rule also applies to public figures. Not all courts have not specifically defined “public figure,” but they do identify candidates for public office and people who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety as fitting this description. Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). A public figure could also be someone who voluntarily enters the public eye because of a particular public issue or controversy.

Courts have upheld this rule based on the U.S. belief that the public should be able to freely discuss national issues without fear of repercussions. If a public official or public figure believes that he or she has been defamed, he or she must prove with convincing evidence that the statement is false. The public official also must prove that the defamer showed reckless disregard for that falsity, either because the defamer knew the statement was false or should have known. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979).

It is important to note that while Court decisions regarding this rule have primarily addressed issues related to freedom of the press, the rule applies to any statement, whether made in a newspaper or to an acquaintance on the street. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 133 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2687, 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979).

The Private Arena

Private individuals who believe they have been defamed must prove that the defamer showed negligence in considering or confirming that a statement is false prior to publication, rather than the more stringent reckless disregard. This rule applies also to public officials or public figures relative to personal or private matters.

A claim must also show fault on the part of the defamer, although the specific standard can vary from state to state. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (1974) 418 U.S. 323. The question of fault is considered in the following contexts:


The statement is published or conveyed in some way to a third party;
The material is false, although the publisher may have believed it to be true;
The material in the statement may be construed as defamatory based on other extrinsic facts;
The actual statement may be an error, or may have used a word with more than one meaning; and
The defamed person may not be named specifically, but is described.


In any of these instances, the issue of liability is based on whether, in the individual situation, a reasonable person would believe that the defamer should have known that the statement would be seen by a third party, that the content was false, or that the described person was easily identifiable. If a reasonable person would take the time to research the truth or falsity of a statement or believe that a statement should be confirmed before publishing, the defamer will be held to the negligence standard.

Rest - https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/defamation-public-official-vs-private-person/

[fj1200]

Absolutely, i am.
There are no legal "credentials" to qualify as "the press". Anyone who publishes information is "the press".

I believe you are correct that anyone can be the press but IMO being "the press" carries some responsibility that was absent with Alex Jones. The below also excludes him from being "the press." I think it's pretty clear that he made no attempt to make sure to confirm what he was putting out there.



The Private Arena

Private individuals who believe they have been defamed must prove that the defamer showed negligence in considering or confirming that a statement is false prior to publication, rather than the more stringent reckless disregard. This rule applies also to public officials or public figures relative to personal or private matters.

...




In any of these instances, the issue of liability is based on whether, in the individual situation, a reasonable person would believe that the defamer should have known that the statement would be seen by a third party, that the content was false, or that the described person was easily identifiable. If a reasonable person would take the time to research the truth or falsity of a statement or believe that a statement should be confirmed before publishing, the defamer will be held to the negligence standard.

Rest - https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/defamation-public-official-vs-private-person/

[fj1200]

So... If you believe Alex Jones does not have to pay damages do you also believe that so many in the MSM do not have to pay damages to Kyle Rittenhouse?

[fj1200]

So... is Alex Jones still "press"?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook-trial/index.html

[Gunny]

So... is Alex Jones still "press"?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook-trial/index.htmlGiven some of the things I've seen/heard from "The View", I'd say he's entitled to same "freedom of speech" that Whoopi Goldberg who thinks God supports abortion is?

Of course Jones is a crackpot and a liar. He has a voice only because people AND THE MSM give him one. Selectively. Same as The View. Opposing shitty sides of the same coin.

I just don't like the double standard for "defamation".

[Gunny]

Have we decided that if nothing else, this guy is a class-less idiot? I haven't bothered with the particulars beyond the "free speech" argument but I assume he's being sued for calling the Sandy Hook school shooting a hoax?

I STILL think he's an idiot, BUT ... moving right along ...

Did the Sandy Hook shooting have anything at all, in any way whatsoever to do with Jan 6th? Because the Jan 6th Farce is asking for all Jones' communications, records and what not.

[Black Diamond]

So will trump sue nadler and schiff over Russian collusion? And to be fair will Obama sue trump for saying he was born in Kenya.

[Black Diamond]

Have we decided that if nothing else, this guy is a class-less idiot? I haven't bothered with the particulars beyond the "free speech" argument but I assume he's being sued for calling the Sandy Hook school shooting a hoax?

I STILL think he's an idiot, BUT ... moving right along ...

Did the Sandy Hook shooting have anything at all, in any way whatsoever to do with Jan 6th? Because the Jan 6th Farce is asking for all Jones' communications, records and what not.

Both were Trumps fault.

[Gunny]

So will trump sue nadler and schiff over Russian collusion? And to be fair will Obama sue trump for saying he was born in Kenya.

He's already tried to sue somebody. Doesn't work if you're "on the right". Using Jones as precedent, one would think Trump could sue a whole of Democrats from Biden on down, and most MSM outlets. The lies and accusations have most definitely hurt his political career.

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZcpcHTWQAAXVJB?format=jpg&name=small

[revelarts]

So... is Alex Jones still "press"?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook-trial/index.html

Yes.
MSM spews more and bigger lies than Jones, and on a more regular basis.


CNN caught admitting they help Biden
CNN influencing elections
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv8Zy-JwXr4

All of MSM Hunter Biden's email/laptop they "KNOW" IT'S 'RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION'"...
MSM Lying ....and social media CENSORED anyone saying any different
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qQazyJ99OE

All of MSM
Covid-19 came from some bat in a wet market. "It's just a CONSPIRACY theory that it came from a lab in Wuhan!"
MSM lying ....and social media CENSORED anyone saying any different
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl-X-Lgrlf0

NBC
"Woman gives man Chloroquine FISH TANK CLEANER in an attempt to prevent coronavirus & dies after taking"
Claim she did it "Because TRUMP told her too!"
But NBC didn't reveal that she was a Hillary supporter/donor and had assaulted her husband before and wanted a divorce...
No pain caused families there?

All of US MSM with CNN leading the charge
Calling the drug Ivermectin Horse paste and mock people for getting it from their doctors. While foreign nations were using it to protect their people.
AND it's on the WHO list of ESSENTIAL medicines and has a 30 year safety record better than Advil.
MSM causing DEATH? I think a case IS literally being made.


CBS News
Caught Using Footage from an Italian Hospital to Describe Conditions in New York City (VIDEO)
Jim Hoft by Jim Hoft March 29, 2020
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...rk-city-video/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/cbs-news-caught-using-footage-from-an-italian-hospital-to-describe-conditions-in-new-york-city-video/)


FOX NEWS
Iraq DOES have something to do with 911
https://www.foxnews.com/story/the-connection-between-9-11-and-iraq
Umm NOPE


FOX
Glenn Beck, Nov. 12, 2009
"But if you don't play by their new rules on health care -- oh, here's a new little twist. Have you heard this? You're going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail."
Later in the show, Beck said, "And oh, yes, the potential jail time. If you don't have health insurance? Jail time. You heard Nancy Pelosi defend that portion of the bill just a few minutes ago. There has got to be some way to force everybody to have health care, right? It is jail."
NOPE


ABC
News staged crime-scene shot, photograph shows
https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/media/abc-news-stage-live-shot/


https://i.pinimg.com/564x/93/08/34/9308346e304d860c7765d3bb2679df4a.jpg?b=t

http://1000words.fatcow.com/box8/pol%20-%20fox%20right%20to%20misinform.png

"During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”..."
link (http://In%20February%202003,%20a%20Florida%20Court%20of%2 0Appeals%20unanimously%20agreed%20with%20an%20asse rtion%20by%20FOX%20News%20that%20there%20is%20no%2 0rule%20against%20distorting%20or%20falsifying%20t he%20news%20in%20the%20United%20States.)



2002 New York Times
Iraq is buying Yellow Cake from Africa!!!
Any lawsuit for fomenting a BS war with lies where thousands of Americans died and families suffered?


Bottom line the MSM is a LYING machine but people want to act like Jones is some outlier from "real journalism"
But folks lets be honest,

1st, most people haven't even listen to most of Jones stuff so they wouldn't know how much news he actually puts out,
Good bad or otherwise.

2nd, like him or not he's a tip of the spear of all alternative media news. and he's already among the 1st to be banned from socail media AND banned from getting money from PayPal and others.
Not long after the cheers died down for banning him. many others alt media sites got the same treatment.
then they did it to Trump.

3rd, Notice that Jones is getting a 45 million $ judgement, don't you think that sends a message to alt news of all kinds?
BTW Julian Assange is still in custody... for independent journalism as well.
The message to independent media/journalist/commentators or even activist here is not subtle.

Does Jones have freedom of the press, as a "journalist" or entertainer or whatever?
Yes.
Do some people want him... or anyone else outside of the MSM narratives to have it?
H3ll no.

[Black Diamond]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZcpcHTWQAAXVJB?format=jpg&name=small

Yikes. Why in the blazing hell would a judge put that horseshit up in social media. How in God's name are we or anyone supposed to think she's impartial.
Unethical at best. The VERY best.

[revelarts]

January 6
the WORSE ATTACK SINCE THE CIVIL WAR!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPKvkj_rxF4

[Black Diamond]

January 6
the WORSE ATTACK SINCE THE CIVIL WAR!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPKvkj_rxF4

Well on 9/11, per Bidens party, some people did something.

[fj1200]

Yes.
MSM spews more and bigger lies than Jones, and on a more regular basis.


A bad MSM does not in any way make him the press especially as this case played out.

[revelarts]

A bad MSM does not in any way make him the press especially as this case played out.

Bad reporting doesn't exclude him from the press especially since the MSM is worse and has caused FAR more damage.

[revelarts]

Yes.
MSM spews more and bigger lies than Jones, and on a more regular basis.


CNN caught admitting they help Biden
CNN influencing elections
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv8Zy-JwXr4

All of MSM Hunter Biden's email/laptop they "KNOW" IT'S 'RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION'"...
MSM Lying ....and social media CENSORED anyone saying any different
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qQazyJ99OE

All of MSM
Covid-19 came from some bat in a wet market. "It's just a CONSPIRACY theory that it came from a lab in Wuhan!"
MSM lying ....and social media CENSORED anyone saying any different
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl-X-Lgrlf0

NBC
"Woman gives man Chloroquine FISH TANK CLEANER in an attempt to prevent coronavirus & dies after taking"
Claim she did it "Because TRUMP told her too!"
But NBC didn't reveal that she was a Hillary supporter/donor and had assaulted her husband before and wanted a divorce...
No pain caused families there?

All of US MSM with CNN leading the charge
Calling the drug Ivermectin Horse paste and mock people for getting it from their doctors. While foreign nations were using it to protect their people.
AND it's on the WHO list of ESSENTIAL medicines and has a 30 year safety record better than Advil.
MSM causing DEATH? I think a case IS literally being made.


CBS News
Caught Using Footage from an Italian Hospital to Describe Conditions in New York City (VIDEO)
Jim Hoft by Jim Hoft March 29, 2020
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...rk-city-video/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/cbs-news-caught-using-footage-from-an-italian-hospital-to-describe-conditions-in-new-york-city-video/)


FOX NEWS
Iraq DOES have something to do with 911
https://www.foxnews.com/story/the-connection-between-9-11-and-iraq
Umm NOPE


FOX
Glenn Beck, Nov. 12, 2009
"But if you don't play by their new rules on health care -- oh, here's a new little twist. Have you heard this? You're going to be looking at a fun little stint in jail."
Later in the show, Beck said, "And oh, yes, the potential jail time. If you don't have health insurance? Jail time. You heard Nancy Pelosi defend that portion of the bill just a few minutes ago. There has got to be some way to force everybody to have health care, right? It is jail."
NOPE


ABC
News staged crime-scene shot, photograph shows
https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/media/abc-news-stage-live-shot/


https://i.pinimg.com/564x/93/08/34/9308346e304d860c7765d3bb2679df4a.jpg?b=t

http://1000words.fatcow.com/box8/pol%20-%20fox%20right%20to%20misinform.png

"During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”..."
link (http://In%20February%202003,%20a%20Florida%20Court%20of%2 0Appeals%20unanimously%20agreed%20with%20an%20asse rtion%20by%20FOX%20News%20that%20there%20is%20no%2 0rule%20against%20distorting%20or%20falsifying%20t he%20news%20in%20the%20United%20States.)



2002 New York Times
Iraq is buying Yellow Cake from Africa!!!
Any lawsuit for fomenting a BS war with lies where thousands of Americans died and families suffered?


Bottom line the MSM is a LYING machine but people want to act like Jones is some outlier from "real journalism"
But folks lets be honest,

1st, most people haven't even listen to most of Jones stuff so they wouldn't know how much news he actually puts out,
Good bad or otherwise.

2nd, like him or not he's a tip of the spear of all alternative media news. and he's already among the 1st to be banned from socail media AND banned from getting money from PayPal and others.
Not long after the cheers died down for banning him. many others alt media sites got the same treatment.
then they did it to Trump.

3rd, Notice that Jones is getting a 45 million $ judgement, don't you think that sends a message to alt news of all kinds?
BTW Julian Assange is still in custody... for independent journalism as well.
The message to independent media/journalist/commentators or even activist here is not subtle.

Does Jones have freedom of the press, as a "journalist" or entertainer or whatever?
Yes.
Do some people want him... or anyone else outside of the MSM narratives to have it?
H3ll no.


I, and many of you, could list A LOT more fake news , "mistakes", strait up lies and mis-characterizations of events and people's characters.
Remember the "smirking" kid in DC and the native vet with a drum?
and
•(NBC) Nightly News Anchor Brian Williams Lied About an Iraq War Helicopter Incident. In 2003 Dateline NBC headlined a story, "Target Iraq: Helicopter NBC's Brian Williams Was Riding In Comes
Under Fire." Further scrutiny prompted by this revelation found that Williams had told inconsistent stories about
-a man committing suicide in the New Orleans Super Dome during Katrina,
-falsely claimed he was at the Brandenburg Gate the night the Berlin Wall came down,
-and lied about flying into Baghdad with SEAL Team Six.
•(Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election.
•(Salon, CNN, NBC News, MSNBC, CBS News, et al.) Donald Trump Requests Security Clearance for His Children.
•(ABC News) In 2009, ABC News Blatantly Lied About The 1 Million Protesters in Attendance, Reports 60,000. it was so brazenly false. Glenn Beck's 9-12 March on Washington DC brought in over a million Tea Party protesters to call for lower taxes and less federal spending.
•(Washington Post, Miami Herald, Mic, et al.) Sources Falsely Claim Orlando Shooter Used an AR-15 Rifle
•(New York Times) A National Desk Columnist for The New York Times Made A Career There Out of Faking News
Jayson Blair had a bright career at the New York Times that came to an abrupt end in 2003 when he was investigated for fabricating numerous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair) stories. The newspaper's internal investigation found problems with 36 out of the 73 columns Blair had written since transferring to the national desk.
•(Fox News) Top Fox News Employee Confesses to "Selling" Americans on The Iraq War. the network had a vested interested in making sure its viewers decided in favor of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
Listen to what Luhn said (https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/fmr-fox-booker-harassed-by-ailes-for-20-years.html): "I was very proud of the product. I was very proud of how we handled 9/11. Very proud of how we handled the run-up to the Iraq War. My job was to sell the war. I needed to get people on the air that were attractive and articulate and could convey the importance of this campaign. It was a drumbeat.”
•(Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, CBS) The CIA Recruited Leading American Journalists to Pass Off Propaganda As News Operation mockingbird
•(Rolling Stone) A Completely Fabricated Story of Campus Rape Is Published In A Catastrophic Failure of Editorial Process
•(Reuters) Photographer Doctors a Photo of Smoke at The Site of an Israeli Airstrike. In 2006, Reuters published photos of an Israeli airstrike in a suburban neighborhood of Beirut.
•(The Guardian) UK Newspaper Publishes Chain Email Hoax Claiming President Bush Has The Lowest IQ of Any President
•(The Huffington Post) A Photoshopped Receipt With a One Percent Tip From a "One Percent" Banker Makes Headlines. In 2012, with the Occupy Wall Street movement in full force and rage against "the One Percent" angrily fomenting.

etc etc etc....

[BoogyMan]

I would not be looking for money, I would simply want a few minutes alone with him. After that he wouldn’t be paying anyone anything.


And I'm glad too. Can you imagine having your child killed at such an age, and then having someone like this POS repeat over and over again that it was a hoax? Or that somehow some were in on it? Now, how much and when will he pay up?

With his many problems in front of him, I have a sneaky suspicion that in a few years this dumb ass will be in jail somewhere.

---

Connecticut judge orders Infowars’ Alex Jones to pay damages to families of Sandy Hook shooting victims in defamation lawsuits

A Connecticut judge has ruled conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is responsible for all damages in the defamation lawsuits brought against him by the families of those killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting after his repeated claims that the Newtown massacre was a hoax.

Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis issued a default in the lawsuits Monday morning after years of what she found to be inappropriate conduct by Jones’ attorneys regarding depositions and the “callous disregard of their obligation” to turn over financial and web analytics data as ordered by the court.

The default is the most severe sanction Bellis could issue, ruling in favor of the Sandy Hook families and sending the case directly to a jury to award damages without the much-anticipated civil trial.

“Mr. Jones is very used to saying whatever he wants to say from the comfort of his own studio, but what I think this case has shown is that when he is forced to defend his conduct in a court of law and comply with court orders, that it’s a very different ballgame,” said attorney Chris Mattei, a lawyer representing the Sandy Hook families. “The fact that the court was left with no choice but to default him shows just how unwilling Mr. Jones was to have his conduct exposed to the light of day in front of a jury.”

Rest - https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-sandy-hook-lawsuit-alex-jones-hearing-20211115-ccie6kyugrcenm5pjrje7xswk4-story.html

[Gunny]

I'd still like to know what any of this circus sideshow has to do with the Jan 6th Committee demanding his communications/records.

Simple takeaway: It's okay to freely express your lies if you are a leftard :rolleyes:

[icansayit]

https://icansayit.com/pictures/sue america.jpg

[fj1200]

Bad reporting doesn't exclude him from the press especially since the MSM is worse and has caused FAR more damage.

Him not being from the press excludes him from being the press. You have a funny way of proving a point by pointing to a shiny object in the other direction.

[Black Diamond]

Him not being from the press excludes him from being the press. You have a funny way of proving a point by pointing to a shiny object in the other direction.

OK I don't want to fish though the whole thread. But Jones has a radio show. How is "being part of the press" defined? I'll concede he isn't mainstream but. Can you help me with the definition?

[fj1200]

OK I don't want to fish though the whole thread. But Jones has a radio show. How is "being part of the press" defined? I'll concede he isn't mainstream but. Can you help me with the definition?

That's a good question. We didn't really get into it from that perspective. I'm not sure there is a hard and fast definition and the line is probably blurring as time goes by. Also, I'm not quite sure that even if he was the press that he would get a pass. We have freedom of the press and freedom of speech but I don't think either of those two things are absolute; definitely not the last.

Seemingly not the former either:


Conditional Privilege Does Not Guarantee Immunity for Reporters

The First Amendment emerged from the fundamental principle that public discussion is a political duty. In a defamation case brought by a public official against her critics, conditional privilege protects most speech made in good faith and in the public interest.

"Good faith" means the speaker must believe his or her comment is true, without recklessly failing to discern its falsity. Journalists are protected from defamation claims when their publication fairly comments on matters of public concern. But if the media knowingly or recklessly publishes false information, the privilege is lost.

The seminal case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan centered on a full-page advertisement in that newspaper. The ad, called "Heed Their Rising Voices," alleged that Alabama police arrested Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury because the government was colluding to destroy King's civil rights campaign. (The advertisement contained some factual inaccuracies.)
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-public-officials-and-the-media.html

[revelarts]

Him not being from the press excludes him from being the press. You have a funny way of proving a point by pointing to a shiny object in the other direction.


OK I don't want to fish though the whole thread. But Jones has a radio show. How is "being part of the press" defined? I'll concede he isn't mainstream but. Can you help me with the definition?


That's a good question. We didn't really get into it from that perspective. I'm not sure there is a hard and fast definition and the line is probably blurring as time goes by. Also, I'm not quite sure that even if he was the press ..

Hasn't blurred you just tried to draw some bogus line between Jones and the "real press"
And now realize that dog won't hunt.
Jones and anyone else publishing or broadcasting info IS "the press".


Now youre trying to blow new smoke.
look fj When the point I made, which you were trying to dismiss, still stands.
IF Jones is guilty then the MSM is MORESO . By any objective standard.

whatever Jones speech "crime", What's happened to him is not justice.

[fj1200]

Hasn't blurred you just tried to draw some bogus line between Jones and the "real press"
And now realize that dog won't hunt.
Jones and anyone else publishing or broadcasting info IS "the press".


Now youre trying to blow new smoke.
look fj When the point I made, which you were trying to dismiss, still stands.
IF Jones is guilty then the MSM is MORESO . By any objective standard.

whatever Jones speech "crime", What's happened to him is not justice.

Ridiculous distraction was ridiculous. Press has a responsibility that he does not meet. A question I've asked before; Are Rittenhouse and Sandmann no longer entitled to their awards against members of the "press"?

Under a wide definition anyone with a twitter account could be press which is why I said the line is blurring; Does that make everyone or noone subject to defamation laws? Do you maintain that anyone who claims to be "press" should not be subjected to defamation laws? Because I tihnk there are many cases in which they've paid out damages. Sandmann, Jewell, et al.

[revelarts]

I'd still like to know what any of this circus sideshow has to do with the Jan 6th Committee demanding his communications/records.


Jones is generally a Trump supporter, and has promoted militias & gun ownership, and talked openly about taking down the govt and the pedos in it (peacefully). And has interviewed guys like Roger Stone and reps from the group "promise keepers" and maybe ...I'm not sure... encouraged people to go to the J6 rally on his show.
For this and more Jones is on the lefts most hated list generally.

So the committee Wants a fishing expedition into Jones records.
But in their minds he probably help plot the overthrow of the govt!!!