International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Sandy Hook parents sue Alex Jones for defamation (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328704)

smartcooky 18th April 2018 05:13 AM

Sandy Hook parents sue Alex Jones for defamation
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43799449

I hope the bastard gets taken to the cleaners

fuelair 18th April 2018 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12262425)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43799449

I hope the bastard gets taken to the cleaners

Same here - with a sauce of sandpapering on the sides and back and front until he verbally admits his foulness.

Tinfoil Hater 18th April 2018 02:58 PM

Alex Jones is a absolute scumbag. If he believes the conspiracy, he's mentally ill. If its just for ratings he's callously using people who are suffering and causing them more suffering

dudalb 18th April 2018 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12262425)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43799449

I hope the bastard gets taken to the cleaners

I would love to see it, but defamation is hard to prove in a US Courtroom,and Jones could probably wriggle out of it legally. Even if a jury awards damages, Jones could probably find some freedom of speech gimmick to cause the verdict to be overturned on appeal.

tinribmancer 18th April 2018 03:17 PM

Could this finally be the beginning of the end for him and his lame-o-wars?

Bob001 19th April 2018 10:56 AM

Sandy Hook parents sue Alex Jones
 
Parents of Sandy Hook victims, fed up with Alex Jones' lying about them, have filed suit for $1,000,000+.
Quote:

Three parents whose children were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 filed a defamation lawsuit on Tuesday against Alex Jones, the right-wing conspiracy theorist who has long claimed the shooting was “completely fake” and a “giant hoax” perpetrated by opponents of the Second Amendment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/b...andy-hook.html

Sounds like they're letting him off cheap. Maybe start at $100 million and negotiate down?

baron 19th April 2018 11:18 AM

Can you sue someone for being a moronic lunatic?

Fudbucker 19th April 2018 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12264027)
Can you sue someone for being a moronic lunatic?

If they defame you, why not?

JoeMorgue 19th April 2018 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baron (Post 12264027)
Can you sue someone for being a moronic lunatic?

Please tell me you don't honestly think that's what this.

Mumbles 19th April 2018 11:51 AM

Good.

Seriously, Jones' false conspiracy crap was a large part of his idiot listeners hounding these people, sending them death threats, and other real-world nightmares. I'd be perfectly happy if they put him out of business for good.

Nessie 19th April 2018 12:05 PM

Good. Hope it works for the parents.

Vixen 19th April 2018 12:09 PM

I thought 'free speech' was enshrined in the US constitution, so they might find it difficult to win on the grounds of defamation. It sounds more like stalking and harassment.

P.J. Denyer 19th April 2018 12:11 PM

Best of luck to them.

AJM8125 19th April 2018 12:13 PM

Blinky hasn’t anything to worry about. All he has to do is prove the hoax. Should be a slam dunk, right?

Babbylonian 19th April 2018 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12264070)
I thought 'free speech' was enshrined in the US constitution, so they might find it difficult to win on the grounds of defamation. It sounds more like stalking and harassment.

And I thought defamation was still a legal tort and that, if proven in court, the 1st amendment has nothing to do with it (it is).

Like the other rights "enshrined" in the [amended] Constitution, freedom of speech is not absolute.

Bob001 19th April 2018 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12264070)
I thought 'free speech' was enshrined in the US constitution, so they might find it difficult to win on the grounds of defamation. It sounds more like stalking and harassment.

You hold a common misperception of the concept of "free speech." The First Amendment means that the government can't prevent you from expressing your beliefs or punish you for it afterward. It doesn't mean you can say anything you want without consequences. It does not prevent prosecution for crimes when speech leads to action, like inciting to riot or obstruction of justice, nor does it prevent civil action when speech injures someone. In this case, the plaintiffs claim they were injured by the defendant's speech, and now they get to take it to a jury.

psionl0 19th April 2018 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12264073)
Blinky hasnt anything to worry about. All he has to do is prove the hoax. Should be a slam dunk, right?

I thought that they would have to demonstrate that Jones knew his allegations were false in order to claim damages. At the very least, it would have to be demonstrated that Jones had no foundation for these allegations or had no "reasonable" belief.

Either way, it is another field day for the lawyers.

Babbylonian 19th April 2018 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12264109)
I thought that they would have to demonstrate that Jones knew his allegations were false in order to claim damages. At the very least, it would have to be demonstrated that Jones had no foundation for these allegations or had no "reasonable" belief.

Either way, it is another field day for the lawyers.

Given the demonstrable effects (ongoing harassment and threats) of these claims on the parents, the onus will be on him to show that he had a reasonable basis for them, a very difficult prospect. It seems to me that the more difficult part will be proving to the court that it was his claims that led to the harassment. It should be doable since AFAIK his was the loudest voice calling Sandy Hook a hoax, but I don't know if he originated the claim or just jumped into the driver's seat of an existing CT bandwagon.

MikeG 19th April 2018 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12264070)
I thought 'free speech' was enshrined in the US constitution, so they might find it difficult to win on the grounds of defamation. It sounds more like stalking and harassment.

You do understand, don't you, that the constraints imposed by the constitution are entirely on the government? In other words, the government won't pass any laws which constrain the citizens freedom of religion and expression (in terms). Free speech doesn't mean you aren't liable for the consequences of what you say, it just means that you're allowed to say it in the first place.

Bob001 19th April 2018 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12264109)
I thought that they would have to demonstrate that Jones knew his allegations were false in order to claim damages. At the very least, it would have to be demonstrated that Jones had no foundation for these allegations or had no "reasonable" belief.
...

They are not public figures, like politicians or celebrities, and the standards are not as strict. Their claim is that they were injured by false allegations. His defense would be to prove that the allegations are true, or maybe to assert he thought they were true and had a basis for it. The plaintiffs don't have to prove that he knew they were false, which would usually be the case for a celebrity.

jimbob 19th April 2018 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12264109)
I thought that they would have to demonstrate that Jones knew his allegations were false in order to claim damages. At the very least, it would have to be demonstrated that Jones had no foundation for these allegations or had no "reasonable" belief.

Either way, it is another field day for the lawyers.

His statement in hisETA divorce case custody battle that it is an act mightn't help him in that.

ETA:

Link

http://time.com/4743025/alex-jones-i...-donald-trump/

Quote:

But a lawyer for Jones recently said the conspiracy theorist is merely playing a character when he speaks via his InfoWars channels. Hes playing a character, attorney Randall Wilhite said during a recent pretrial hearing. He is a performance artist.

The Austin American-Statesman reports Jones is in the middle of a custody battle, and his ex-wife and mother of his three children, Kelly Jones, has said his fiery rants prove he is not a fit parent. Hes not a stable person, Kelly Jones has said, according to the Statesman. He broadcasts from home. The children are there, watching him broadcast.

Segnosaur 19th April 2018 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12264109)
I thought that they would have to demonstrate that Jones knew his allegations were false in order to claim damages. At the very least, it would have to be demonstrated that Jones had no foundation for these allegations or had no "reasonable" belief.

During his divorce/child custody case, Jones once claimed (through his lawyer) that what he does on InfoWars is a "performance". If that can be entered into evidence, that would certainly weaken Jones' case.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/i...-a7687571.html

Babbylonian 19th April 2018 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12264175)
His statement in hisETA divorce case custody battle that it is an act mightn't help him in that.

ETA:

Link

http://time.com/4743025/alex-jones-i...-donald-trump/

There are two edges to that sword, though. If his show is a performance, and also intended to be fictional, then calling anything he says defamation would be like calling an article in The Onion defamation.

Segnosaur 19th April 2018 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babbylonian (Post 12264196)
There are two edges to that sword, though. If his show is a performance, and also intended to be fictional, then calling anything he says defamation would be like calling an article in The Onion defamation.

But the difference is, The Onion is marketed as satire. Its audience is smart enough to recognize that the material is meant to be comical.

While one of the readers here may be smart enough to know that Jones is full of B.S., many/most of his viewers are not that smart, and will accept his statements as truthful. His "performance" cannot be interpreted as satire either by those who know he's full of B.S. (and just see him as a con artist rather than a satirist) or those who believe him. And there are a lot of those around. (The fact that his articles have lead to actual harassment of victims is proof of that.)

Babbylonian 19th April 2018 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12264201)
But the difference is, The Onion is marketed as satire. Its audience is smart enough to recognize that the material is meant to be comical.

While one of the readers here may be smart enough to know that Jones is full of B.S., many/most of his viewers are not that smart, and will accept his statements as truthful. His "performance" cannot be interpreted as satire either by those who know he's full of B.S. (and just see him as a con artist rather than a satirist) or those who believe him. And there are a lot of those around. (The fact that his articles have lead to actual harassment of victims is proof of that.)

Oh, I agree. While I believe he's playing a role, his "bits" are intended to be taken seriously by his audience as well as his detractors (as they help to inflame his audience). I'm just saying that his acknowledgment in a public record that he's engaging in "performance" isn't a magic bullet for the plaintiffs.

JoeMorgue 19th April 2018 02:38 PM

Yes. If we don't let the crazy nutjob criminally slander the parents of dead children and order assault strikes on pizza parlors with imaginary child sex dungeons today then tomorrow we're gonna be denied "Loved Ones Recall Local Man’s Cowardly Battle With Cancer" headlines in an obvious parody newspaper.

Babbylonian 19th April 2018 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12264234)
Yes. If we don't let the crazy nutjob criminally slander the parents of dead children and order assault strikes on pizza parlors with imaginary child sex dungeons today then tomorrow we're gonna be denied "Loved Ones Recall Local Man’s Cowardly Battle With Cancer" headlines in an obvious parody newspaper.

Again, I agree. Courtrooms, however, unfortunately, are their own little worlds. I hope against hope that a jury sees what's up and bankrupts Jones.

P.J. Denyer 19th April 2018 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12264070)
I thought 'free speech' was enshrined in the US constitution, so they might find it difficult to win on the grounds of defamation. It sounds more like stalking and harassment.

And I thought the constitution applied to the actions of the government.

Oh, another thread that will end up with us presenting evidence that runs into the "I don't buy it" wall.

dudalb 19th April 2018 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (Post 12264281)
And I thought the constitution applied to the actions of the government.

Oh, another thread that will end up with us presenting evidence that runs into the "I don't buy it" wall.


Amazing how many people just don't get that freedom of speech does not mean you are free from any consquences of what you say.......

dudalb 19th April 2018 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babbylonian (Post 12264249)
Again, I agree. Courtrooms, however, unfortunately, are their own little worlds. I hope against hope that a jury sees what's up and bankrupts Jones.

I would love to see Jones go under, but, even if a Jury finds that Jones is guilty of defamation, Jones will probably hire some lawyer who will find a loophole that will make an appeals court either overturn or greatly reduce the judgement.

dudalb 19th April 2018 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 12264201)
But the difference is, The Onion is marketed as satire. Its audience is smart enough to recognize that the material is meant to be comical.

While one of the readers here may be smart enough to know that Jones is full of B.S., many/most of his viewers are not that smart, and will accept his statements as truthful. His "performance" cannot be interpreted as satire either by those who know he's full of B.S. (and just see him as a con artist rather than a satirist) or those who believe him. And there are a lot of those around. (The fact that his articles have lead to actual harassment of victims is proof of that.)

Oh, I am sure that Jones will claim he was just doing satire when he made the comments.

dudalb 19th April 2018 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 12264128)
You do understand, don't you, that the constraints imposed by the constitution are entirely on the government? In other words, the government won't pass any laws which constrain the citizens freedom of religion and expression (in terms). Free speech doesn't mean you aren't liable for the consequences of what you say, it just means that you're allowed to say it in the first place.

AMazinf how many people don't get this.
Under the US COnstituion I have a perfect right to walk into my bosses office and call him a dirty son of a bitch to his face. The government can do nothing to stop me. But the Constituion won't keep my butt from being canned ...

dudalb 19th April 2018 04:00 PM

ANother thread about this in the social issues section.

JoeMorgue 19th April 2018 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12264339)
AMazinf how many people don't get this.

Oh I think most all of them get it just fine. But "DEFINE EXACTLY WHERE FREE SPEECH BEGINS AND ENDS!" is a nice rabbit hole to drag a discussion down.

ddt 19th April 2018 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babbylonian (Post 12264249)
Again, I agree. Courtrooms, however, unfortunately, are their own little worlds. I hope against hope that a jury sees what's up and bankrupts Jones.

I hope too but 1 million does not suffice to bankrupt him.

Babbylonian 19th April 2018 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddt (Post 12264352)
I hope too but 1 million does not suffice to bankrupt him.

A jury that finds him guilty of defamation might (depending on the court) be able to order a great deal more in punitive damages.

ddt 19th April 2018 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babbylonian (Post 12264363)
A jury that finds him guilty of defamation might (depending on the court) be able to order a great deal more in punitive damages.

OK. Let's hope they'll do.

KatieG 19th April 2018 06:34 PM

It's about damn time!

smartcooky 19th April 2018 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12264341)
ANother thread about this in the social issues section.


I've contacted the mods and asked them to merge the two

BobTheCoward 19th April 2018 10:23 PM

I hope he wins.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.