Alex Jones told to pay $965m damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

[Gunny]

Don't anybody get to thinking I'm a fan of this kook, but, Why? Why does he have to pay $965m in damages for being a conspiracy nut? I haven't seen a single dime come out of the leftwingnut conspiracy nuts when almost every "theory" they have some conspiracy bullshit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63237092

[Black Diamond]

Don't anybody get to thinking I'm a fan of this kook, but, Why? Why does he have to pay $965m in damages for being a conspiracy nut? I haven't seen a single dime come out of the leftwingnut conspiracy nuts when almost every "theory" they have some conspiracy bullshit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63237092

The judgment should open the door for others to sue the MSM for their lies. But then I am assuming we have a fair system.

[fj1200]

Don't anybody get to thinking I'm a fan of this kook, but, Why? Why does he have to pay $965m in damages for being a conspiracy nut? I haven't seen a single dime come out of the leftwingnut conspiracy nuts when almost every "theory" they have some conspiracy bullshit.

Slander is costly these days. Especially when you're a moron with followers.


The judgment should open the door for others to sue the MSM for their lies. But then I am assuming we have a fair system.

Jewll, Sandmann, Rittenhouse (probably)...

[Gunny]

Slander is costly these days. Especially when you're a moron with followers.



Jewll, Sandmann, Rittenhouse (probably)...

This looks no more like slander than whatever the last slander crap we discussed was. So he cause $956m worth of damage with is mouth?

What would you total the amount of slander by the left/MSM/Dems against the right would be at this point for all the cow manure they've been spreading for years?

[Black Diamond]

This looks no more like slander than whatever the last slander crap we discussed was. So he cause $956m worth of damage with is mouth?

What would you total the amount of slander by the left/MSM/Dems against the right would be at this point for all the cow manure they've been spreading for years?

Many many times that. So bring on the litigation.

[Gunny]

Many many times that. So bring on the litigation.Apparently it only counts if leftwingtards are harmed :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

This looks no more like slander than whatever the last slander crap we discussed was. So he cause $956m worth of damage with is mouth?

What would you total the amount of slander by the left/MSM/Dems against the right would be at this point for all the cow manure they've been spreading for years?

Same slander, different people. More this time. Not sure why it wasn't all combined into 1 suit.

[Gunny]

Same slander, different people. More this time. Not sure why it wasn't all combined into 1 suit.This is the same case? I don't recall.

Seems to me there aren't enough lawyers for Trump to hire ....:whistling2:

[Black Diamond]

Apparently it only counts if leftwingtards are harmed :rolleyes:

That's what I am afraid of. Lawyers should be quick to point it out.

[fj1200]

This is the same case? I don't recall.

Seems to me there aren't enough lawyers for Trump to hire ....:whistling2:

Different case. Based on his Sandy Hook comments like the other one.

[Gunny]

Different case. Based on his Sandy Hook comments like the other one.You're being your usual cryptic self. Based on your comments, he's been tried more than once for the same thing?

[fj1200]

You're being your usual cryptic self. Based on your comments, he's been tried more than once for the same thing?

I'm trying not to be. Maybe old habits die hard. :420: I think this suit is essentially the same as the last one but he's being sued by a different group of people, many more in this time around. But it's not criminal so no double jeopardy.

[Gunny]

I'm trying not to be. Maybe old habits die hard. :420: I think this suit is essentially the same as the last one but he's being sued by a different group of people, many more in this time around. But it's not criminal so no double jeopardy.

You mean it is technically not double jeopardy because lawyers found a way around that Constitutional protection like others.

I'm just back to comparing this and Jan 6th with taking over Federal buildings in Portland and Seattle, Chicago and MN - vandalizing property, hurting/killing people. Mobbing up outside Supreme Court Justices' houses.

System is broken.

[revelarts]

Here's an interesting thing, Police and U.S. Courts have done FAR WORSE. People literally imprisoned for decades have not received judgments against the gov't or their false accusers for their loss of good name and years of abuses in prison.
But somehow those accusations ARE covered under free speech and immunity?
Not to mention the lies politicians and "news" agencies spew on the daily.

Alex Jones is words are worse? that's BS.
People just don't like Jones.
It's selective enforcement... and emotionally and politically driven punishment.

Hopefully he'll be allowed to use other constitutional rights to appeal.
But i wouldn't be surprised if that's blocked as well.
Because too many people don't really care about equal protection under the law if it involves a public figure they don't like.

But if this sets a precedent and some beloved public figure of there's gets the same treatment, they'll be crying about "justice!" & "the constitution!".

[Gunny]

Here's an interesting thing, Police and U.S. Courts have done FAR WORSE. People literally imprisoned for decades have not received judgments against the gov't or their false accusers for their loss of good name and years of abuses in prison.
But somehow those accusations ARE covered under free speech and immunity?
Not to mention the lies politicians and "news" agencies spew on the daily.

Alex Jones is words are worse? that's BS.
People just don't like Jones.
It's selective enforcement... and emotionally and politically driven punishment.

Hopefully he'll be allowed to use other constitutional rights to appeal.
But i wouldn't be surprised if that's blocked as well.
Because too many people don't really care about equal protection under the law if it involves a public figure they don't like.

But if this sets a precedent and some beloved public figure of there's gets the same treatment, they'll be crying about "justice!" & "the constitution!".


Because too many people don't really care about equal protection under the law if it involves a public figure they don't like

If that ain't the truth.

It is however hardly setting a precedent. It's just more of the same from a vindictive system that demands compliance or it will destroy you one way or the other. While it has an unlimited bank account, time and/or resources to draw from to attack you, you have only what you think are your Rights that are selectively allowed/denied by the same system.

[fj1200]

Here's an interesting thing, Police and U.S. Courts have done FAR WORSE. People literally imprisoned for decades have not received judgments against the gov't or their false accusers for their loss of good name and years of abuses in prison.
But somehow those accusations ARE covered under free speech and immunity?
Not to mention the lies politicians and "news" agencies spew on the daily.

Alex Jones is words are worse? that's BS.
People just don't like Jones.
It's selective enforcement... and emotionally and politically driven punishment.

Hopefully he'll be allowed to use other constitutional rights to appeal.
But i wouldn't be surprised if that's blocked as well.
Because too many people don't really care about equal protection under the law if it involves a public figure they don't like.

But if this sets a precedent and some beloved public figure of there's gets the same treatment, they'll be crying about "justice!" & "the constitution!".

Alex Jone's words are traceable, definable, and unprotected.

Your other actions listed above are not free speech, they are qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is not absolute just as free speech is not absolute.

Not sure what other constitutional rights he has that might be blocked.

[Gunny]

Alex Jone's words are traceable, definable, and unprotected.

Your other actions listed above are not free speech, they are qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is not absolute just as free speech is not absolute.

Not sure what other constitutional rights he has that might be blocked.

How are they not protected as free speech? Again, I'm comparing this to a lot of things said by leftwingnuts that even go so far as ruining people's lives but "protected" by the First.

Btw, I have long held our judicial system in contempt. Too bad I can't charge it with being in contempt of itself. Just adding context :)

[fj1200]

How are they not protected as free speech? Again, I'm comparing this to a lot of things said by leftwingnuts that even go so far as ruining people's lives but "protected" by the First.

Btw, I have long held our judicial system in contempt. Too bad I can't charge it with being in contempt of itself. Just adding context :)

The prosecutors and police? As a function of their jobs. I don't think speech really comes into play at all. But they do have qualified immunity as protection against some of their actions.

If you're asking about false accusers then they don't really have free speech either. Perjury if in a trial or the same slander/libel that Jones was sued under.

But I agree, the system isn't perfect.

[Gunny]

The prosecutors and police? As a function of their jobs. I don't think speech really comes into play at all. But they do have qualified immunity as protection against some of their actions.

If you're asking about false accusers then they don't really have free speech either. Perjury if in a trial or the same slander/libel that Jones was sued under.

But I agree, the system isn't perfect.I was referring to Jones, not prosecutors and police. Public officials responsible for informing the public should not be allowed to lie/should [resent only facts, IMO.

You're saying the system isn't perfect and I'm saying it's broken. You are saying there is no free/protected speech. In other words, lawyers have rendered the First Amendment null and void.

When it is working in concert with one side of politics/political agendas, it is a threat to democracy.

[fj1200]

I was referring to Jones, not prosecutors and police. Public officials responsible for informing the public should not be allowed to lie/should [resent only facts, IMO.

You're saying the system isn't perfect and I'm saying it's broken. You are saying there is no free/protected speech. In other words, lawyers have rendered the First Amendment null and void.

When it is working in concert with one side of politics/political agendas, it is a threat to democracy.

I didn't say that. Just not in the examples provided.

[icansayit]

Whoever decided that SPEECH of any kind was ILLEGAL probably voted for BIDEN, and has never found a need to be DEFENDED on their own.

I do believe Jones will actually APPEAL, and his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS via the FIRST AMENDMENT. WILL, AND SHOULD BE UPHELD.

OTHERWISE. Who here on D.P. would like to SUE ME, or JIM as the OWNER of this FORUM where SPEECH in all of it's forms....HAS BEEN USED FREELY???

[revelarts]

Alex Jone's words are traceable, definable, and unprotected.
Your other actions listed above are not free speech, they are qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is not absolute just as free speech is not absolute.
Not sure what other constitutional rights he has that might be blocked.

Fj you're making no sense.
the the news media are in the same category as Jones.
Politicians are on record daily and have no "legal" immunity to lie. (just broad cultural latitude)
People who testify in courtrooms, whether civilians or police or "experts", are supposedly held to an even HIGHER standard since they are under oath in a court of law.
and all words there are recorded in official records.

they're all traceable, definable and just as legally unprotected.

Also.
this is 2 part part issue.
Issue#1 is, whether or not someones has the freedom to say such things.
Issue#2 is. IF NOT what are just punishments for "breaking the law".

Even if by some bizarre twisted & selective use of the law people can be convicted for what Jones did. The punishment for it here is, without question, OUTRAGEOUSLY INSANELY overblown.

[revelarts]

Just one example of many on how UNJUST the punishment is.
is the level of harm done by jones anywhere close to the opioid crisis?

But that settlement was one of the largest against pharma execs.

no disrespect to the feelings and discomfort of the Sandy Hook parents but there's NO WAY this judgement is "justice". it's clearly political and emotional

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fe_vOuVWAAYW0oy?format=jpg&name=small

[fj1200]

Just one example of many on how UNJUST the punishment is.
is the level of harm done by jones anywhere close to the opioid crisis?

But that settlement was one of the largest against pharma execs.

no disrespect to the feelings and discomfort of the Sandy Hook parents but there's NO WAY this judgement is "justice". it's clearly political and emotional



Is this better?


Purdue Pharma, Sacklers reach $6 billion deal with state attorneys general

But I agree. When you get juries involved there's no telling.

[fj1200]

Fj you're making no sense.
the the news media are in the same category as Jones.
Politicians are on record daily and have no "legal" immunity to lie. (just broad cultural latitude)
People who testify in courtrooms, whether civilians or police or "experts", are supposedly held to an even HIGHER standard since they are under oath in a court of law.
and all words there are recorded in official records.

they're all traceable, definable and just as legally unprotected.

Also.
this is 2 part part issue.
Issue#1 is, whether or not someones has the freedom to say such things.
Issue#2 is. IF NOT what are just punishments for "breaking the law".

Even if by some bizarre twisted & selective use of the law people can be convicted for what Jones did. The punishment for it here is, without question, OUTRAGEOUSLY INSANELY overblown.

Point of order; Jones hasn't been convicted of anything, it was a civil trial. The government doesn't prosecute for slander and libel.

Issue 1. I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the freedom to say such things without repercussion.
Issue 2. As I said, getting a jury involved is not going to lead to consistent damages being levied.

And you're going to have to be a bit more specific when you tell me I'm not making any sense. Politicians and media lying is not the same as slander and libel. People testifying under oath is perjury and is a crime. A private individual being slandered or libeled can bring a defamation suit.

[Gunny]

I didn't say that. Just not in the examples provided.I'm reading post #18. Was rhetorical anyway. We already know we don't have free speech. Our "free speech" is always defended by deflection/comparison to places like Iran and N Korea.

[revelarts]

Is this better?

Seems that 6 billion was a plea bargain to limit the damages and law suits from all current & future victims to just that number.
Jones has no such bargain or limit on damages, or future "victims" law suits
(BTW the pharma execs have got that kind of money.)



But I agree. When you get juries involved there's no telling.

courts can limit juries damages (even if it's not legal, they've done worse as a matter of practice)
And i believe it may even be a point of law
Ran Across this in the Connecticut state legal docs
pSec. 52-237.
Damages in actions for libel. In any action for a libel, the defendant may give proof of intention; and unless the plaintiff proves either malice in fact or that the defendant, after having been requested by the plaintiff in writing to retract the libelous charge, in as public a manner as that in which it was made, failed to do so within a reasonable time, the plaintiff shall recover nothing but such actual damage as the plaintiff may have specially alleged and proved.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_901.htm#sec_52-237

If this is in fact state law there then the judgement is not just crazy but it's Illegal.

BTW
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fe_v6GKWIAI6hSS?format=jpg&name=small

[fj1200]

Seems that 6 billion was a plea bargain to limit the damages and law suits from all current & future victims to just that number.
Jones has no such bargain or limit on damages, or future "victims" law suits
(BTW the pharma execs have got that kind of money.)

Right. Not the point. You seemed to be looking to equate $$$ to justice. Possibly he needed better lawyers or a willingness to admit guilt.


courts can limit juries damages (even if it's not legal, they've done worse as a matter of practice)
And i believe it may even be a point of law
Ran Across this in the Connecticut state legal docs
pSec. 52-237.
Damages in actions for libel. In any action for a libel, the defendant may give proof of intention; and unless the plaintiff proves either malice in fact or that the defendant, after having been requested by the plaintiff in writing to retract the libelous charge, in as public a manner as that in which it was made, failed to do so within a reasonable time, the plaintiff shall recover nothing but such actual damage as the plaintiff may have specially alleged and proved.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_901.htm#sec_52-237

If this is in fact state law there then the judgement is not just crazy but it's Illegal.

BTW

Then I'm sure he'll appeal. But if you're looking for me to defend the $$$ awarded then I'm not planning to and don't think I have. My statement is that Jones is reaping what he sowed.

Post #25?

[revelarts]

Right. Not the point. You seemed to be looking to equate $$$ to justice. Possibly he needed better lawyers or a willingness to admit guilt.



Then I'm sure he'll appeal. But if you're looking for me to defend the $$$ awarded then I'm not planning to and don't think I have. My statement is that Jones is reaping what he sowed.

Post #25?
If you sow 10 corn seeds you won't reap 1 billion heads of corn.

Of the 2nd part of the problem with this case, that is the point.

[fj1200]

If you sow 10 corn seeds you won't reap 1 billion heads of corn.

Of the 2nd part of the problem with this case, that is the point.

I'm not following. I thought we had two issues. 1, whether his free speech rights were violated, and 2, inconsistencies of jury/court awards?

To recap. 1. I don't think they were, and 2, the Constitution; what're ya gonna do (7A).

[icansayit]

In ALL CASES. The Constitution Comes First. Of course. There's no BIAS in the present JUSTICE system under the Biden/Garland/Crooked A.G.'s or PROSECUTORS.
RIGHT?

[revelarts]

"(Bloomberg) -- Sandy Hook families said a Connecticut judge should impose “the highest possible punitive damages” for Alex Jones, suggesting by one calculation that could be as high as
$2.75 trillion...."

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sandy-hook-families-seek-2-75-trillion-from-alex-jones-1.1836028

In-freakin'-sane.


Yes FJ I'm equating $$$ to justice.
Courts are supposed to dispense "justice" .
and equal justice under the law.
not whatever this is.

ever see this?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVbNGVKMyD8rPLHB0UpRmU9VNeNAb8y Uaq1-GWckMFhikhREOTRM3XLdP96TehBD-96as&usqp=CAU

it what's our courts CLAIM to try to be.

just weights, blind justice.



So if someone kills thousands with their drugs they should be punished far more than
someone who said somethings that hurt people's feelings with words.

the court (JUSTICE) system is to blame not "the lawyers" or "juries" or the VICTIM(Jones).

[Gunny]

Kanye West is up next for offending another victim snowflake with his opinion. If you can't shut the people up one way, there's always another. You can sue anyone for anything in civil court. Stupid :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

"(Bloomberg) -- Sandy Hook families said a Connecticut judge should impose “the highest possible punitive damages” for Alex Jones, suggesting by one calculation that could be as high as
$2.75 trillion...."

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/sandy-hook-families-seek-2-75-trillion-from-alex-jones-1.1836028

In-freakin'-sane.


Yes FJ I'm equating $$$ to justice.
Courts are supposed to dispense "justice" .
and equal justice under the law.
not whatever this is.

ever see this?

it what's our courts CLAIM to try to be.

just weights, blind justice.



So if someone kills thousands with their drugs they should be punished far more than
someone who said somethings that hurt people's feelings with words.

the court (JUSTICE) system is to blame not "the lawyers" or "juries" or the VICTIM(Jones).

A few things...
1. Lawyers can say anything they want.
2. If you're equating dollars to justice then you're going to be a very unhappy fella.
3. I want my courts to decide matters of law, not justice.

And....

4. Jones is a victim?

[Gunny]

A few things...
1. Lawyers can say anything they want.
2. If you're equating dollars to justice then you're going to be a very unhappy fella.
3. I want my courts to decide matters of law, not justice.

And....

4. Jones is a victim?I would say he is a victim of freely voicing an opinion not popular with the establishment.

The law is supposed to decide matters of justice. When matters are decided by law, it's fine. When the law is misused as a political weapon rather than matters of justice, then it no longer represents what it is supposed to.

This is as a big a joke, and abuse of the legal system to punish an individual for his unpopular views as there is.

[icansayit]

A few things...
1. Lawyers can say anything they want.
2. If you're equating dollars to justice then you're going to be a very unhappy fella.
3. I want my courts to decide matters of law, not justice.

And....

4. Jones is a victim?
fj....let's play your insincere game here. Let's change the name JONES to your real last name after you have come here to make any statement that you usually do in showing how the FIRST AMENDMENT doesn't apply for you because you offered your opinion in Public (Like here on DP).
HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU THINK IS FAIR FOR YOUR WORDS?

[revelarts]

A few things...
1. Lawyers can say anything they want.
2. If you're equating dollars to justice then you're going to be a very unhappy fella.
3. I want my courts to decide matters of law, not justice.
And....
4. Jones is a victim?

really? I don't think you do.

Slavery was legal.
In Germany killing jews and others in camps was legal.
In the U.S. & Canada gov't forced sterilization of the "unfit" & "undesirables" was legal.
Abortion is legal.

Maybe here's couple that'd bother you
Confiscation of personal and corporate property without a trial or conviction is legal.
In the U.K. at one point there was a 90% tax on certain levels of wealth... very LEGAL.

I know you didn't like our gov't's use and promotion of torture, but they said that was "legal".
But you somehow managed to complain that it wasn't legal or just or justice.

Seems to me we all should demand, hope & pray our courts are shooting for justice and not just what's "legal".

[fj1200]

I would say he is a victim of freely voicing an opinion not popular with the establishment.

The law is supposed to decide matters of justice. When matters are decided by law, it's fine. When the law is misused as a political weapon rather than matters of justice, then it no longer represents what it is supposed to.

This is as a big a joke, and abuse of the legal system to punish an individual for his unpopular views as there is.

He wasn't being sued because he expressed a difference of opinion. Is "justice" here overkill? I won't disagree.

[fj1200]

fj....let's play your insincere game here. Let's change the name JONES to your real last name after you have come here to make any statement that you usually do in showing how the FIRST AMENDMENT doesn't apply for you because you offered your opinion in Public (Like here on DP).
HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU THINK IS FAIR FOR YOUR WORDS?

Ask me again when I engage in defamation (hint: not free speech).

[icansayit]

Ask me again when I engage in defamation (hint: not free speech).

Doesn't matter what Rhetorical or Semantics you use. 1ST Amendment comes 1st.

[fj1200]

really? I don't think you do.

Slavery was legal.
In Germany killing jews and others in camps was legal.
In the U.S. & Canada gov't forced sterilization of the "unfit" & "undesirables" was legal.
Abortion is legal.

Maybe here's couple that'd bother you
Confiscation of personal and corporate property without a trial or conviction is legal.
In the U.K. at one point there was a 90% tax on certain levels of wealth... very LEGAL.

I know you didn't like our gov't's use and promotion of torture, but they said that was "legal".
But you somehow managed to complain that it wasn't legal or just or justice.

Seems to me we all should demand, hope & pray our courts are shooting for justice and not just what's "legal".

Thank you for making my point. Those are/were legal and in no way a reflection of justice. Demanding that the legal system start to engage in justice is an ineffective method of getting justice. Laws need to change to reflect justice and in some respects the changing views of justice. In the time before Thurgood Marshall was nominated to SCOTUS he spent a career bringing civil rights cases through the court system culminating in Brown. If Brown was the first case brought to the court the outcome would most likely have been different. It took time, court cases, and laws to be changed for justice to be changed.

When a law is broken, say murder, and you have an idea of justice on one side and I have an idea of justice on the other side the question before the court is the law and was a murder committed. You might demand justice and a murder conviction but manslaughter is all that was committed... do you still want the court to decide justice?

I'm sure we can agree on many laws and policies that are legal and not just but that's not really the case here. We all should want justice in our legal system but our laws need to be passed with justice in mind.

[fj1200]

Doesn't matter what Rhetorical or Semantics you use. 1ST Amendment comes 1st.

This is really not a question of rhetoric or semantics; not all speech is free.


Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?

Obscenity.
Fighting words.
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography.
Perjury.
Blackmail.
Incitement to imminent lawless action.
True threats.

More items... (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/)

Which types of speech are not protected by the First ...

(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/)

I'm really not sure why you keep bringing that up. It's really not an arguable point that not all speech is free. If you want to argue that Jones' speech was covered under the first then that's a different argument than you seem to be making.

[SassyLady]

Whether it's a legal or a justice outcome the damages are excessive.

[fj1200]

Whether it's a legal or a justice outcome the damages are excessive.

And the courts generally have a chance to reign those in.

[icansayit]

This is really not a question of rhetoric or semantics; not all speech is free.



I'm really not sure why you keep bringing that up. It's really not an arguable point that not all speech is free. If you want to argue that Jones' speech was covered under the first then that's a different argument than you seem to be making.

[CENTER][B]SHOW US ALL WHERE what you said is written in the 1st Amendment.

https://icansayit.com/consti/THE 1STAMEND.jpg

[fj1200]

[CENTER][B]SHOW US ALL WHERE what you said is written in the 1st Amendment.

https://icansayit.com/consti/THE 1STAMEND.jpg

Well, I could read it as a child like you seem so fond of doing. Or I could read it with the understanding that 200+ years laws, legal decisions, SCOTUS rulings, etc. have truly shown some limitations on the first amendment. If you truly feel differently you can tell me how the abridged listing of limitations in Post #42 is an incorrect interpretation of the modern day views on the first amendment. :)

[icansayit]

Well, I could read it as a child like you seem so fond of doing. Or I could read it with the understanding that 200+ years laws, legal decisions, SCOTUS rulings, etc. have truly shown some limitations on the first amendment. If you truly feel differently you can tell me how the abridged listing of limitations in Post #42 is an incorrect interpretation of the modern day views on the first amendment. :)

Hope you enjoy your November 8th awakening. Pissoff anyway.

[fj1200]

Hope you enjoy your November 8th awakening. Pissoff anyway.

Do you mean the Republicans taking control of the House and Senate? And Kemp, et al winning in Georgia? Yeah, that'll be nice.

[revelarts]

Thank you for making my point.

None of what I said was your point FJ.



Those are/were legal and in no way a reflection of justice.

3. I want my courts to decide matters of law, not justice.
That's what you said.
"legal" ..."maters of law" yes, the same.


But somehow you pour out this odd mish mash of ideas to clear it up?


Demanding that the legal system start to engage in justice is an ineffective method of getting justice.
Laws need to change to reflect justice and in some respects the changing views of justice. In the time before Thurgood Marshall was nominated to SCOTUS he spent a career bringing civil rights cases through the court system culminating in Brown. If Brown was the first case brought to the court the outcome would most likely have been different. It took time, court cases, and laws to be changed for justice to be changed.
When a law is broken, say murder, and you have an idea of justice on one side and I have an idea of justice on the other side the question before the court is the law and was a murder committed. You might demand justice and a murder conviction but manslaughter is all that was committed... do you still want the court to decide justice?
I'm sure we can agree on many laws and policies that are legal and not just but that's not really the case here.
We all should want justice in our legal system but our laws need to be passed with justice in mind.

We should want it ... but not demand it because it's ineffective... but we get it by passing laws.... with justice in mind... but justice changes.
Sorry FJ, you're blowing smoke. And think you know it.

Bottom line, the judgement against Jones is UNJUST.
And the legal/justice/system of law (created by our lawmakers with justice in mind:rolleyes:) is largely to blame here.

the court (JUSTICE) system is to blame not "the lawyers" or "juries" or the VICTIM(Jones).

[fj1200]

None of what I said was your point FJ.

That's what you said.
"legal" ..."maters of law" yes, the same.

It was actually. My point is the difference between law and justice, you provided examples of things legal that are not justice.


But somehow you pour out this odd mish mash of ideas to clear it up?

My apologies for not being clear. I want courts to decide matters of law. I want legislatures to pass laws that are just.


We should want it ... but not demand it because it's ineffective... but we get it by passing laws.... with justice in mind... but justice changes.
Sorry FJ, you're blowing smoke. And think you know it.

Bottom line, the judgement against Jones is UNJUST.
And the legal/justice/system of law (created by our lawmakers with justice in mind:rolleyes:) is largely to blame here.

Why you're insistent on attempting to restate what I say I do not know but you typically get it wrong. Justice is subjective, being convicted of violating a particular law is objective.

The verdict against Jones being $1, $1bb, or $1tt... I don't care. I don't expect rational jury decisions especially in some districts but what they are doing is attempting to mete out justice which oddly seems to be what you prefer.

There may be issues with our court system but Jones is not the poster boy for someone who has been harmed by it.

[revelarts]

It was actually. My point is the difference between law and justice, you provided examples of things legal that are not justice.
My apologies for not being clear. I want courts to decide matters of law. I want legislatures to pass laws that are just.


3. I want my courts to decide matters of law, not justice.
Sorry That's NOT making a point about a difference about law & justice. not even close

Sounds like you're trying to cover, still mish mashing & trying to dissect something that doesn't need to be.
The laws and the courts work together. And YOU put them together in the same assertion.

I made it Clearer, that JUSTICE and Courts of Law are not the same.
That Laws/Courts, Should be Just & administered equal justice.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do.




The verdict against Jones being $1, $1bb, or $1tt... I don't care.
most people don't until it happens to someone they like or to them.
This is why it's important to have equal justice under the law.
So it doesn't matter if you or i care. But everyone is treated fairly.



I don't expect rational jury decisions especially in some districts but what they are doing is attempting to mete out justice which oddly seems to be what you prefer.
There may be issues with our court system but Jones is not the poster boy for someone who has been harmed by it.

No one has to be the "poster child", to be a real victim of the "justice" system.
Most victims names and cases are never known, this thread happen to be about the Jones case.

[fj1200]

Sorry That's NOT making a point about a difference about law & justice. not even close

Sounds like you're trying to cover, still mish mashing & trying to dissect something that doesn't need to be.
The laws and the courts work together. And YOU put them together in the same assertion.

I made it Clearer, that JUSTICE and Courts of Law are not the same.
That Laws/Courts, Should be Just & administered equal justice.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do.

To the first bold I guess we disagree.

To the second bold I don't think I can say it any more clearly than I said before. "I want courts to decide matters of law. I want legislatures to pass laws that are just." In a perfect world law and justice are equal but we are a fallen people trying to administer a system to the best of our abilities.


most people don't until it happens to someone they like or to them.
This is why it's important to have equal justice under the law.
So it doesn't matter if you or i care. But everyone is treated fairly.

I don't care here. Juries are by definition subjective in these types of cases where the law provides minimal guidance. Were they harmed $965mm plus punitive? No. I hope the judge has the legal authority to remedy that.


No one has to be the "poster child", to be a real victim of the "justice" system.
Most victims names and cases are never known, this thread happen to be about the Jones case.

I suppose I might be moving more toward your position if you acknowledged that Jones was in the wrong.

[revelarts]

I suppose I might be moving more toward your position if you acknowledged that Jones was in the wrong.
Jones may in fact be guilty of "defamation" or Libel. I haven't followed the case or know enough about the nuance of the law etc to say.

But is it "wrong" for someone to say in the media that parents are lying about their children being killed & dead.
It's a horrific thing to do.
Is it a crime?
I don't think so.
No more a crime than someone in media saying the Trump is a Rapist, Michelle Obama is a man, Bush is a mass murderer or the Queen was a lizard person etc etc


But the issue for me here is the "punishment".

[fj1200]

Jones may in fact be guilty of "defamation" or Libel. I haven't followed the case or know enough about the nuance of the law etc to say.

But is it "wrong" for someone to say in the media that parents are lying about their children being killed & dead.
It's a horrific thing to do.
Is it a crime?
I don't think so.
No more a crime than someone in media saying the Trump is a Rapist, Michelle Obama is a man, Bush is a mass murderer or the Queen was a lizard person etc etc


But the issue for me here is the "punishment".

That kind of is A Number 1 here isn't it? Number 2 is that what he said isn't criminal, it's civil which means it's number 3, subject to juries and they are the ones deciding justice meaning that your ire about laws is misplaced.

You mention four individuals who are public and have little legal recourse but Jones was talking about private individuals who have more protection in terms of defamation than public individuals.

I might agree with you in some respects but you should have specifics to complain about first.

[LostInSeattle]

New here, so first let me say hello to everyone.

I find a lot of the comments in this thread puzzling.

The slander trial against Jones has zero to do with the 1st Amendment, which restricts Congress' ability to abridge speech. This protection was extended to the state level by the 14th Amendment.

Civil trials for slander/libel are civil. They are not government actions. There is no prosecutor involved, only the attorneys for both sides.

Speech is free; the consequences of speech may not be.

I think that the scale of the judgements against Jones reflect four things:

1. He knowingly spread outrageous lies - he admitted as much. These lies were easily falsified; he was asked repeatedly by the plaintiffs to desist and he did not. He not only maligned these people personally, but did it in an explicably indecent and hurtful context, making miserable the lives of parents who had just lost their little children by claiming that it was all faked and that they were complicit.

2. He abetted his followers to harass the plaintiffs, online and physically, to the point where they felt at great risk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/alex-jones-infowars-sandy-hook.html

3. He did all this for financial gain, to inflame opinion and drive traffic to his website to sell stuff.

4. He did everything wrong at trial: he withheld evidence, he prejured himself, he attacked the judge, he lost his temper repeatedly.

Finally, though I don't whether this factored into the jury's decision, Jones perpetrated enormous gaslighting, undermining our shared sense of reality and truth that we rely on to function as a society. It was incredibly toxic behavior. Even today, despite the ludicrous nature of Jones' lies and the fact that he recanted them, 1 in 5 Americans still believe that Sandy Hook was staged. That is fucked up.

[revelarts]

New here, so first let me say hello to everyone.


Hi LISeattle,
welcome to the conversations.

[revelarts]

now to business, nothing personal.


The slander trial against Jones has zero to do with the 1st Amendment, which restricts Congress' ability to abridge speech. This protection was extended to the state level by the 14th Amendment.
Civil trials for slander/libel are civil. They are not government actions. There is no prosecutor involved, only the attorneys for both sides.
Speech is free; the consequences of speech may not be.

I do think there's a 1st amendment point to be made.
the 1st amendment ASSUMES people's God given right to speech. NOT hindered by gov't.
I think there's a case to be made that NO LAW should infringe.
However of course I do recognize some penalties for some speech make sense. Specifically when others livelihoods or health are IN FACT negatively effected.
But "reputation" and extreme hurt feelings are a thin place to allow gov't laws, (CIVIL laws are still gov't laws) to play fast and loose.

And the statement
"Speech is free; the consequences of speech may not be."

Is simply antithetical to free speech. in the 1st place it's chilling.
beyond that, There's NO boundary for the level of offense that might produce "consequences". And no boundary to those "consequences".
the statement is blank check.

Also it's mostly used in those cases where the the person using it wants someoneELSE's speech to have harsh consequences.
In general the statement undermines the natural & constitutional right.


I think that the scale of the judgements against Jones reflect four things:
1. He knowingly spread outrageous lies - he admitted as much. These lies were easily falsified; he was asked repeatedly by the plaintiffs to desist and he did not. He not only maligned these people personally, but did it in an explicably indecent and hurtful context, making miserable the lives of parents who had just lost their little children by claiming that it was all faked and that they were complicit.
2. He abetted his followers to harass the plaintiffs, online and physically, to the point where they felt at great risk.
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/alex-jones-infowars-sandy-hook.html" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/alex-jones-infowars-sandy-hook.html</a>
3. He did all this for financial gain, to inflame opinion and drive traffic to his website to sell stuff.
4. He did everything wrong at trial: he withheld evidence, he prejured himself, he attacked the judge, he lost his temper repeatedly.

A fair judgment might use all those as a basis. But none of that added together times 10 adds up to the scale of the judgment.
I think the scale reflects animus toward Jones.



Finally, though I don't whether this factored into the jury's decision, Jones perpetrated enormous gaslighting, undermining our shared sense of reality and truth that we rely on to function as a society. It was incredibly toxic behavior. Even today, despite the ludicrous nature of Jones' lies and the fact that he recanted them, 1 in 5 Americans still believe that Sandy Hook was staged. That is fucked up.

People promote, they've been abducted by Aliens, that Elvis is Alive, that Lizard people run the world, that Michelle Obama is a man, that Russia rigged the 2016 election, That Biden is mentally capable to be president of the US, That people with penises are women, that Epstein committed suicide, that mask work, that police are 99.9% good guys (except the FBI now), that
Trump is the greatest president since Washington, others that Trump IS worse than Hitler... etc etc.
"our shared sense of reality" is not as shared as some would like, and that's GREAT. it's part of personal freedom.

And People don't get billion or trillion+ dollar judgments for undermining our shared sense of reality and truth that we rely on to function as a society.
it's like he's committed heresy.
Look, it's Cults and Tyrannies that aim to foster all encompassing shared sense of reality and truth by using the courts and financial punishments.

umm
again welcome, ...Websites called debate policy... btw.

[revelarts]

That kind of is A Number 1 here isn't it? Number 2 is that what he said isn't criminal, it's civil which means it's number 3, subject to juries and they are the ones deciding justice meaning that your ire about laws is misplaced.
technically constitutionally all trials should be jury trials.
and the LAWS he's being tried under are STATE and local laws written by the gov't legislatures. they aren't doing this under private arbitration, or on the "people's court" TV show.
I'm not sure why you and Seattle are trying to pretend that the gov't is out of the picture.
Since it's "civil" court and not "criminal".
The gov't set up the rules of the game, the Laws, they are in a gov't court with a gov't judge, and lawyers that passed the gov't legal examine.
And the gov't will help enforce the penalties.

civil vs criminal court is small to zero consolation when facing a billion++ dollar fines.



You mention four individuals who are public and have little legal recourse but Jones was talking about private individuals who have more protection in terms of defamation than public individuals.
Seem like you're saying the laws don't apply equally.
I agree.

like Rittenhouse & Remember this kid
https://katv.com/resources/media/f567a498-3ace-4e2c-aca9-9d735589527b-medium16x9_NickSandmann.png?1595693680237
CNN settles $275M lawsuit with Covington student Nick Sandmann.
And a JUDGE ...didn't even allow a libel CIVIL suit against Gannet news.

But somehow CNN's harassment and slander of a child only rated 24 million from the mega corp that lied to people AROUND the WORLD 24/7 for days.
They generated death threat against him & his family,
CNN even PAID people to go to his home and church and accused him of things he didn't do,
All for Ratings & FOR MONEY & to sell Pzifer products & the DNC.
BTW they twisted our shared sense of reality that society runs on.
But somehow it didn't rate a billion-trillion dollars



I might agree with you in some respects but you should have specifics to complain about first.
???
My problem from the start has been the unjust SIZE of the judgement.
I've been pretty clear and specific about that.

[fj1200]

technically constitutionally all trials should be jury trials.
and the LAWS he's being tried under are STATE and local laws written by the gov't legislatures. they aren't doing this under private arbitration, or on the "people's court" TV show.
I'm not sure why you and Seattle are trying to pretend that the gov't is out of the picture.
Since it's "civil" court and not "criminal".
The gov't set up the rules of the game, the Laws, they are in a gov't court with a gov't judge, and lawyers that passed the gov't legal examine.
And the gov't will help enforce the penalties.

civil vs criminal court is small to zero consolation when facing a billion++ dollar fines.

Nobody is pretending anything. That's how civil trials work in this country. That's how defamation trials work in this country.


Seem like you're saying the laws don't apply equally.
I agree.

like Rittenhouse & Remember this kid

CNN settles $275M lawsuit with Covington student Nick Sandmann.
And a JUDGE ...didn't even allow a libel CIVIL suit against Gannet news.

But somehow CNN's harassment and slander of a child only rated 24 million from the mega corp that lied to people AROUND the WORLD 24/7 for days.
They generated death threat against him & his family,
CNN even PAID people to go to his home and church and accused him of things he didn't do,
All for Ratings & FOR MONEY & to sell Pzifer products & the DNC.
BTW they twisted our shared sense of reality that society runs on.
But somehow it didn't rate a billion-trillion dollars

I'm pretty much saying that the law applies equally about who can sue and be sued. People who put themselves in the public sphere do not have the same protections as those who don't. I don't recall Hillary suing for pizzagate.

$275mm CNN and maybe $250mm from WaPo (1 kid) vs $965mm (a group) is not something I'm going to get worked up about. Gannett and the others? You don't win everything and sometimes suits get tossed.


???
My problem from the start has been the unjust SIZE of the judgement.
I've been pretty clear and specific about that.

And yet you still don't acknowledge that the facts of the case and the actions Jones took to have this brought on. LiS spelled out all the harm pretty well.

[LostInSeattle]

now to business, nothing personal.

I do think there's a 1st amendment point to be made.
the 1st amendment ASSUMES people's God given right to speech. NOT hindered by gov't.
I think there's a case to be made that NO LAW should infringe.
However of course I do recognize some penalties for some speech make sense. Specifically when others livelihoods or health are IN FACT negatively effected.
But "reputation" and extreme hurt feelings are a thin place to allow gov't laws, (CIVIL laws are still gov't laws) to play fast and loose.

And the statement
"Speech is free; the consequences of speech may not be."

Is simply antithetical to free speech. in the 1st place it's chilling.
beyond that, There's NO boundary for the level of offense that might produce "consequences". And no boundary to those "consequences".
the statement is blank check.

Very confusing post. First you say that, "there's a case to be made that NO LAW shold infringe." Then, you "recognize some penalties for speech make sense."
Yet when I say that the consequences of speech may not be free, you find that chilling and antithetical. How is that different from "some penalties for speech make sense"? Of course boundaries exist for the level of offense. If you want to sue someone for defamation or libel, you have legal bars to clear just to be able to present your case to a jury, and then you have to persuade the jury.

I don't see the 1st Amendment issue. The government is not involved in civil cases. Certainly, society provides both a framework through statute for identifying defamation, etc., and the legal infrastructure of the court system to work things out. But the government is not prosecuting anyone. So no first amendment.



Also it's mostly used in those cases where the the person using it wants someoneELSE's speech to have harsh consequences.

People are sued for defamation, etc., by someone who believes they were harmed. That someone has to establish that the speech in question potentially qualifies as defamation, prove it to the jury, and then convince the jury of the scope of the harm. The consequences are up to the jury, which usually looks for commensurate consequences, not necessarily harsh or lenient.


In general the statement undermines the natural & constitutional right.

How so? I'm just pointing out that there are consequences to speech, legal, social and otherwise. If I call you an asshole, you might be offended, others may have a low opinion of me, I may be kicked from the forum; if I insist that that Lizard people run the world, you might think I'm crazy or stupid. But for that speech there are no legal consequences. If I engage in hate speech, if I use abusive language as an employer towards an employee, if I divulge national security secrets, if I break attorney-client privilege as a lawyer, if I direct people away from the exits in a burning building, if as CFO I lie to shareholders on a company's financial statements - that speech has potential legal consequences.

I don't see how pointing out any of that undermines either the natural or the constitutional right.



A fair judgment might use all those as a basis. But none of that added together times 10 adds up to the scale of the judgment.
I think the scale reflects animus toward Jones.`

Undoubtedly.



People promote, they've been abducted by Aliens, that Elvis is Alive, that Lizard people run the world, that Michelle Obama is a man, that Russia rigged the 2016 election, That Biden is mentally capable to be president of the US, That people with penises are women, that Epstein committed suicide, that mask work, that police are 99.9% good guys (except the FBI now), that Trump is the greatest president since Washington, others that Trump IS worse than Hitler... etc etc.
"our shared sense of reality" is not as shared as some would like, and that's GREAT. it's part of personal freedom.

There's a distinction between facts and interpretation of the facts. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing; that's a fact. Why it's increasing and the potental consequences of the increase are open to debate. When people claim "alternative facts", or simply deny reality, that is a huge problem because it no pathway to resolving differences.



And People don't get billion or trillion+ dollar judgments for undermining our shared sense of reality and truth that we rely on to function as a society.


Never said that was the case. In fact, I said that it probably didn't enter into it, at least not directly. But I do think that the factual disconnect may have made his behavior seem that much more outrageous to the jury. Just spitballin'. It certainly did to me.



it's like he's committed heresy.
Look, it's Cults and Tyrannies that aim to foster all encompassing shared sense of reality and truth by using the courts and financial punishments.


Actually, cults typically use psychological manipulation, and tyrannies add brute force. But I get your point. Still, there's a difference between saying "freedom is freedom" and saying "freedom is slavery." One is a shared sense of reality based on truth and the other a shared sense based on a lie.



umm
again welcome, ...Websites called debate policy... btw.

Thanks! Happy to be here.

[revelarts]

Very confusing post. First you say that, "there's a case to be made that NO LAW shold infringe." Then, you "recognize some penalties for speech make sense."
Yet when I say that the consequences of speech may not be free, you find that chilling and antithetical. How is that different from "some penalties for speech make sense"? Of course boundaries exist for the level of offense. If you want to sue someone for defamation or libel, you have legal bars to clear just to be able to present your case to a jury, and then you have to persuade the jury.

"there's a case to be made that NO LAW should infringe."

A case can be made, but not an IronClad case. that's the point.
"recognize some penalties for speech make sense."

For some speech.
I mentioned where clear harm to livelihood or health is involved.

Not sure where the confusion come in there.
I'm saying it's a free speech issue, but i get that there should be very narrow exceptions.

--the consequences of speech may not be free, you find that chilling and antithetical. How is that different from "some penalties for speech make sense"? Of course boundaries exist for... ---
it's different because the ---"of course boundaries..."-- that you add is not implicit or implied in the statement, -the consequences of speech may not be free-
It's chilling in it's very nature.
For example if a local reporter was doing a story on a corrupt local builder and the builder said to the reporter:
"OF COURSE you have free speech and freedom of the press but the consequences of speech may not be free."
it's chilling on it's face.
If a politician says it to a citizen, a neighbor to neighbor, even a friend to another friend over any issue in dispute.
At best it's a warning to watch what you say, but more often has the force of a subtle threat. Intentional or not it tends to chill free expression.

Look, simple question, does the phrase alone inspire people to MORE free speech... or less?



There's a distinction between facts and interpretation of the facts. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing; that's a fact. Why it's increasing and the potential consequences of the increase are open to debate. When people claim "alternative facts", or simply deny reality, that is a huge problem because it no pathway to resolving differences.

I suspect we'd agree on most issues of "reality"
But sadly where we see clear distinctions others may see nuance or the clear lines in a different place.
As in 'what is a woman'.
Seems a simple enough fact, but at this point some claim the answer is "fluid" or something it's never been before.
and the potential consequences of the answer to the question are deep and wide.

But I agree 100% with you on the idea that "When people claim "alternative facts", or simply deny reality, that is a huge problem because it no pathway to resolving differences."
I'm just generally apposed to legal "consequences".



Actually, cults typically use psychological manipulation, and tyrannies add brute force. But I get your point.

yes,
and broadly speaking
"psychological manipulation" is used in... mass media, various aspects of the educational & political system tap into the same technics.
the degrees vary no doubt.
The meaning and root of the word CULT-ure is interesting.

"tyrannies add brute force."
They also like controlling people by censorship, job/financial displacements, exile/blockage from access to goods services travel etc etc..
generally limiting freedoms to those that don't conform to the gov't's or culture's view of "reality".




Still, there's a difference between saying "freedom is freedom" and saying "freedom is slavery." One is a shared sense of reality based on truth and the other a shared sense based on a lie.

agreed
And a large point of 1984 is that the vast majority of people lived comfortably in the shared sense of reality based on lies... and weren't allowed to question it... without consequence.

[icansayit]

I do not care what ANYONE believes otherwise. My guide is, and always will be the U.S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment.
Words like LIBEL, SLANDER, rhetoric, and semantics DO NOT OVERRULE the FIRST AMENDMENT.

I found this a long time ago, and kept it in my computer files. I do not know the AUTHOR, but it says what I want to say. No matter how anyone cares to argue differently because THEY CLAIM TO BE THE ULTIMATE, and FINAL ANSWER.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . ."
Is there anyone who doesn't understand what that means?
It means as a free American citizen I can say whatever I want
(as long as my words don't lead to the physical harm of others -- like shouting "fire" in a movie theater, for example).
My thoughts and words are not controlled by the government. I am free to say whatever I wish.

Yet, there are colleges and universities across the country compiling lists of words students must not use, phrases that are forbidden, and all sorts of rules about what can and can not be spoken. These are the institutions intended to be forums of debate; they're where issues are expected to be argued back and forth. These are the institutions that now wish to squelch any comment they disagree with.

The First Amendment wasn't provided to protect uncontroversial speech. There's no need to protect that; it's uncontroversial. The First Amendment was expressly provided to protect uncomfortable, disagreeable, and contentious speech.