Sandy Hook parents sue Alex Jones for defamation - Page 3

lobosrul5 · 20th April 2018, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I also said in a similar post we want tests to be accurate. I want the right verdict. I hope the right verdict is a judgement for Jones because I hope people do not suffer damages.

I think we all do, just like we all hope for a negative medical test. But your analogy then falls apart. We don't all agree what the correct verdict is. I hope he is found guilt of defamation, because I believe he has defamed people who have suffered damages from his defmation.

Also, I'm going to go investigate if Vegas is taking bets on this case. Jones is going to lose, I'd bet money on it given decent odds. ETA: strike that the case is in Texas, not Conneticut as I assumed.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I think we all do, just like we all hope for a negative medical test. But your analogy then falls apart. We don't all agree what the correct verdict is. I hope he is found guilt of defamation, because I believe he has defamed people who have suffered damages from his defmation.

Also, I'm going to go investigate if Vegas is taking odds on this case. Jones is going to lose, I'd bet money on it given decent odds.

I think we do agree what the correct verdict is.

Horatius · 20th April 2018, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Your analogy doesn't really work. A negative medical test is not proof that you don't have a disease. False negatives occur, just like bad judgements at trial. Also, pretty much everyone wants to not have a disease, which doesn't apply to defamation trials. Not everyone wants the defendant to win.

Yes, if you're going to "hope for" something, you should be hoping for an accurate judgement (or test result). If he's guilty, he should pay up, if you're sick, you want to know it so you can get treatment.

But Jones vs. the truth is less "I hope I don't actually have cancer" and more "I hope that isn't actually a knife sticking out of my chest". The problem is so clearly obvious to an unbiased observer that "hoping" it isn't defamation/a knife in your chest is ridiculous. If you're not a Sandy Hook Truther, basically the only way Jones wins this case is if the judge rules that the victims are public persons, and as such, it's okay to defame them. And that's not an outcome any reasonable person should be "hoping" for.

Whip · 20th April 2018, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I also said in a similar post we want tests to be accurate. I want the right verdict. I hope the right verdict is a judgement for Jones because I hope people do not suffer damages.

One would think the hope would be that the right verdict is delivered whichever way it goes, no?
you seem to have a problem admitting that if they were defamed and Jones is found guilty, that would be the 'right verdict' since you insist on stating only that Jones be found not guilty would be the 'right verdict'.
you keep dancing around that.
I don't think you are alex jones so your medical analogy fails. you have no skin in the game.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Whip

One would think the hope would be that the right verdict is delivered whichever way it goes, no?
you seem to have a problem admitting that if they were defamed and Jones is found guilty, that would be the 'right verdict' since you insist on stating only that Jones be found not guilty would be the 'right verdict'.
you keep dancing around that.
I don't think you are alex jones so your medical analogy fails. you have no skin in the game.

I have no problem saying if he defamed them he should be found guilty. I thought I did say that.

I hope to both the right verdict, and I hope that if the verdict is right, that those families were never harmed.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Yes, if you're going to "hope for" something, you should be hoping for an accurate judgement (or test result). If he's guilty, he should pay up, if you're sick, you want to know it so you can get treatment.

But Jones vs. the truth is less "I hope I don't actually have cancer" and more "I hope that isn't actually a knife sticking out of my chest". The problem is so clearly obvious to an unbiased observer that "hoping" it isn't defamation/a knife in your chest is ridiculous. If you're not a Sandy Hook Truther, basically the only way Jones wins this case is if the judge rules that the victims are public persons, and as such, it's okay to defame them. And that's not an outcome any reasonable person should be "hoping" for.

There are other ways.

A) he never lied
B) their reputations were never harmed

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Whip

I don't think you are alex jones so your medical analogy fails. you have no skin in the game.

My skin is a general interest of not liking to see people harmed by others. They were likely harmed by Jones (an opinion I try to avoid sharing because I don't think it is appropriate to share judgements, but it feels necessary at this point). I would really like to find out I was wrong about that and they were not harmed.

Horatius · 20th April 2018, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

There are other ways.

A) he never lied
B) their reputations were never harmed

But both of those are objectively hugely unlikely. We're not talking about something he might say in the future, we're talking about things he has already said, over the course of years. There's no way he can claim to be ignorant of the refutations of the "crisis actor" claims, so he must have been lying (absent a claim of actual insanity on his part, a claim he has steadfastly denied for years as well), or at least aware of the possibility that it was a lie (leading to the issue of malice - he didn't care about the truth either way, so long as it played to his narrative). And their reputations have been harmed, at least in so far as actual people have already been convicted for actually issuing actual death threats to the victims of Sandy Hook.

Now, you could quibble about how much their reputations have been damaged, but the damage exists.

Whip · 20th April 2018, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I have no problem saying if he defamed them he should be found guilty. I thought I did say that.

I hope to both the right verdict, and I hope that if the verdict is right, that those families were never harmed.

but the verdict would still be 'right' if they were harmed and he's found guilty. this is where your word game comes into play. you only want it to be 'right' if he's found innocent.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Whip

but the verdict would still be 'right' if they were harmed and he's found guilty. this is where your word game comes into play. you only want it to be 'right' if he's found innocent.

That makes no sense. Of course I want it right in either case. If someone says I hope the test says I don't have cancer, no one then points out that isn't true if the test is wrong.

Whip · 20th April 2018, 12:10 PM

but this is not about cancer or emotions. it's about a legal proceeding.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Whip

but this is not about cancer or emotions. it's about a legal proceeding.

So? Just like those cases, saying I hope for a certain result does not imply I want that result regardless of truth.

jimbob · 20th April 2018, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

So? Just like those cases, saying I hope for a certain result does not imply I want that result regardless of truth.

True, it means that you hope for things that we already know are not true

We do know that Sandy Hook happened
We do know that Alex Jones has claimed it was staged and has accused the parents of being actors
We do know that some of the parents have been threatened

Your hope has to be that one of those is untrue.

Venom · 20th April 2018, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

My skin is a general interest of not liking to see people harmed by others. They were likely harmed by Jones (an opinion I try to avoid sharing because I don't think it is appropriate to share judgements, but it feels necessary at this point). I would really like to find out I was wrong about that and they were not harmed.

I'd like to see him lose so that he'll cry again and look like a fool. And that's the least he can get. Accusing people of mass murder and feeding the hundreds of thousands of conspiracy drones in this country with propaganda is no small thing to me.

sadhatter · 20th April 2018, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I also said in a similar post we want tests to be accurate. I want the right verdict. I hope the right verdict is a judgement for Jones because I hope people do not suffer damages.

Stop trying to sound philosophical when you can't even matter tense.

They either did our did not suffer damages. Your philosophy only functions (not makes sense mind you) when the statement uses the present tense, but we are talking of past actions.

sadhatter · 20th April 2018, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

My skin is a general interest of not liking to see people harmed by others. They were likely harmed by Jones (an opinion I try to avoid sharing because I don't think it is appropriate to share judgements, but it feels necessary at this point). I would really like to find out I was wrong about that and they were not harmed.

What about Jones?

If they have not been harmed he has. So to have any consistency you would have to hope for neither as both contain large amounts of people negatively effected.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Stop trying to sound philosophical when you can't even matter tense.

They either did our did not suffer damages. Your philosophy only functions (not makes sense mind you) when the statement uses the present tense, but we are talking of past actions.

I think they did suffer damages. I'm hoping I'm wrong about that.

Axxman300 · 20th April 2018, 01:06 PM

They have a case. The first part of a defamation case is providing documentation of Jones making the statement(s), and that won't be a problem. The trick is documenting the damage to the victims, which will mostly be emotional pain. Can they show they've lost work time? Have they been forced into extended therapy due to the false statements? Can they show permanent psychological damage?

I'm betting in this case - yes.

https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and...he-basics.html

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...n-lawsuit.html

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Axxman300

They have a case. The first part of a defamation case is providing documentation of Jones making the statement(s), and that won't be a problem. The trick is documenting the damage to the victims, which will mostly be emotional pain. Can they show they've lost work time? Have they been forced into extended therapy due to the false statements? Can they show permanent psychological damage?

I'm betting in this case - yes.

https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and...he-basics.html

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...n-lawsuit.html

I don't understand how the first article explicitly says it hurt reputation, and brought up missing work. Is there only work time lost by reputation or emotional distress? If you skipped work because of distress, but no one at work cared because it didn't affect your reputation, is that harm for purposes of defamation?

dudalb · 20th April 2018, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by tinribmancer

And how big is the chance that he might thrown in behind bars?

In a civil suit like this one, almost none.In the US, people do not go to jail when they lose a civil case.
Only way this happens is if Jones does something really stupid during the trial, and gets tossed in the slammer for "contempt of court" or fails to obey a court order. . And even that technically is a different offense then his defamaing the Sandy Hook victims.

ddt · 20th April 2018, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob

We do know that Sandy Hook happened
We do know that Alex Jones has claimed it was staged and has accused the parents of being actors
We do know that some of the parents have been threatened

As to the last, there's even a woman behind bars for issuing death threats.

How far is Alex Jones' divorce case? Have the assets already been divided? I hope so, otherwise he'll only suffer half the damage.

dudalb · 20th April 2018, 01:59 PM

You know, it's ironic that people get suspended or kicked off the site for some pretty minor offenses, but a guy who constanly hijacks and disrupts threads get away scot free.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

You know, it's ironic that people get suspended or kicked off the site for some pretty minor offenses, but a guy who constanly hijacks and disrupts threads get away scot free.

I expressed my opinion of what I would hope to see happen at a trial for defamation here. That is the topic here.

kookbreaker · 20th April 2018, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I don't understand how the first article explicitly says it hurt reputation, and brought up missing work. Is there only work time lost by reputation or emotional distress? If you skipped work because of distress, but no one at work cared because it didn't affect your reputation, is that harm for purposes of defamation?

If the defamation leads to people harassing you, leaving death threats, and constantly barraging you with disgusting attacks the stress may be enough to cause you to miss work or have other health issues. I understand you personally might be too unempathetic to understand that, but the courts may decide otherwise.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

If the defamation leads to people harassing you, leaving death threats, and constantly barraging you with disgusting attacks the stress may be enough to cause you to miss work or have other health issues. I understand you personally might be too unempathetic to understand that, but the courts may decide otherwise.

It isn't a matter of understanding. The article did not state what you just wrote.

And is that defamation or incitement? The guy assaulted at the Trump rally sued for incitement, but I don't know if that was generally speaking, or a specific term in civil suits.

ddt · 20th April 2018, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

If the defamation leads to people harassing you, leaving death threats, and constantly barraging you with disgusting attacks the stress may be enough to cause you to miss work or have other health issues. I understand you personally might be too unempathetic to understand that, but the courts may decide otherwise.

The major legal hurdle will be, IMHO, to prove the causality of that chain. i.e., that the death threats and barraging was caused by Alex Jones' utterances.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by ddt

The major legal hurdle will be, IMHO, to prove the causality of that chain. i.e., that the death threats and barraging was caused by Alex Jones' utterances.

But do they even need to bother with defamation at that point or is that incitement?

Axxman300 · 20th April 2018, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But do they even need to bother with defamation at that point or is that incitement?

Yes, they need to bother with defamation since it is the only legal recourse they have. Their lawyers wouldn't have filed if they didn't think they had a case.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Yes, they need to bother with defamation since it is the only legal recourse they have. Their lawyers wouldn't have filed if they didn't think they had a case.

What makes it different from incitement?

applecorped · 20th April 2018, 05:54 PM

What's this thread about again?

JoeMorgue · 20th April 2018, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

What's this thread about again?

What literally everything thread on this board is about now.

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

What literally everything thread on this board is about now.

This is about the lawsuit between the parents from Sandy Hook and Alex jones

Axxman300 · 20th April 2018, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

What makes it different from incitement?

Defamation is provable. Incitement requires admission from one or more CT nutcases that Alex Jones alone made them do it. Harder to prove in court, more complex, and easier to defend against.

fuelair · 20th April 2018, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Axxman300

They have a case. The first part of a defamation case is providing documentation of Jones making the statement(s), and that won't be a problem. The trick is documenting the damage to the victims, which will mostly be emotional pain. Can they show they've lost work time? Have they been forced into extended therapy due to the false statements? Can they show permanent psychological damage?

I'm betting in this case - yes.

https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and...he-basics.html

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...n-lawsuit.html

If it were a jury trial I would happily vote for gigantic loss of fundage and prison time for any ******* conservative slime shown to give out lies and/or misleading info about any real people.

fuelair · 20th April 2018, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

In a civil suit like this one, almost none.In the US, people do not go to jail when they lose a civil case.
Only way this happens is if Jones does something really stupid during the trial, and gets tossed in the slammer for "contempt of court" or fails to obey a court order. . And even that technically is a different offense then his defamaing the Sandy Hook victims.

Hope he does!!!!

BobTheCoward · 20th April 2018, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Defamation is provable. Incitement requires admission from one or more CT nutcases that Alex Jones alone made them do it. Harder to prove in court, more complex, and easier to defend against.

Thank you.

Axxman300 · 20th April 2018, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

If it were a jury trial I would happily vote for gigantic loss of fundage and prison time for any ******* conservative slime shown to give out lies and/or misleading info about any real people.

I'd love to see Jones broke and out of his line of work.

The First Amendment make's Info Wars possible. All anyone has to do is preface any wacko charge with the word "Allegedly", and they're free to say whatever they wish. This comes from case law where accusations were made on air and in print that cost someone a lot of money. That's why you'll hear or read the words in cases where guilt is obvious because it avoids legal problems down the road.

The other escape words are "Hypothetically, and "In my opinion".

The flip-side is that there are legitimate reasons to allow this. Watergate is an example of the legitimate use of "Allegedly" to advance investigating journalism

Venom · 20th April 2018, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

What literally everything thread on this board is about now.

Running into walls.

Oystein · 20th April 2018, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Second ETA: I'm bad at Bayesian inference. Wouldn't a finding for Jones alter our probability that he didn't defame?

It would, but quite possibly not significantly. For example, if we are 99% sure he defamed, an acquittal might alter that to 97%.

Oystein · 20th April 2018, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

How? Wanting a negative test result on a medical screening is not a judgement that I don't have the disease.

Actually, it is a judgement that you don't have the desease. For if you left open the possibility, and you have the desease, then you would welcome a positive result, for it would set you on course toward proper treatment, which a false negative would not.
If already have enough information to assume you have the desease, such that a negative test result would more likely be a false negative, you will want a positive result.

20th April 2018, 09:48 AM	#81
lobosrul5 Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 1,521	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I also said in a similar post we want tests to be accurate. I want the right verdict. I hope the right verdict is a judgement for Jones because I hope people do not suffer damages. I think we all do, just like we all hope for a negative medical test. But your analogy then falls apart. We don't all agree what the correct verdict is. I hope he is found guilt of defamation, because I believe he has defamed people who have suffered damages from his defmation. Also, I'm going to go investigate if Vegas is taking bets on this case. Jones is going to lose, I'd bet money on it given decent odds. ETA: strike that the case is in Texas, not Conneticut as I assumed.
	Last edited by lobosrul5; 20th April 2018 at 09:52 AM.

20th April 2018, 10:04 AM	#83
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 26,831	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 Your analogy doesn't really work. A negative medical test is not proof that you don't have a disease. False negatives occur, just like bad judgements at trial. Also, pretty much everyone wants to not have a disease, which doesn't apply to defamation trials. Not everyone wants the defendant to win. Yes, if you're going to "hope for" something, you should be hoping for an accurate judgement (or test result). If he's guilty, he should pay up, if you're sick, you want to know it so you can get treatment. But Jones vs. the truth is less "I hope I don't actually have cancer" and more "I hope that isn't actually a knife sticking out of my chest". The problem is so clearly obvious to an unbiased observer that "hoping" it isn't defamation/a knife in your chest is ridiculous. If you're not a Sandy Hook Truther, basically the only way Jones wins this case is if the judge rules that the victims are public persons, and as such, it's okay to defame them. And that's not an outcome any reasonable person should be "hoping" for.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

20th April 2018, 10:16 AM	#84
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,232	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I also said in a similar post we want tests to be accurate. I want the right verdict. I hope the right verdict is a judgement for Jones because I hope people do not suffer damages. One would think the hope would be that the right verdict is delivered whichever way it goes, no? you seem to have a problem admitting that if they were defamed and Jones is found guilty, that would be the 'right verdict' since you insist on stating only that Jones be found not guilty would be the 'right verdict'. you keep dancing around that. I don't think you are alex jones so your medical analogy fails. you have no skin in the game.
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,232	Last edited by Whip; 20th April 2018 at 10:19 AM.

20th April 2018, 11:29 AM	#88
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 26,831	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward There are other ways. A) he never lied B) their reputations were never harmed But both of those are objectively hugely unlikely. We're not talking about something he might say in the future, we're talking about things he has already said, over the course of years. There's no way he can claim to be ignorant of the refutations of the "crisis actor" claims, so he must have been lying (absent a claim of actual insanity on his part, a claim he has steadfastly denied for years as well), or at least aware of the possibility that it was a lie (leading to the issue of malice - he didn't care about the truth either way, so long as it played to his narrative). And their reputations have been harmed, at least in so far as actual people have already been convicted for actually issuing actual death threats to the victims of Sandy Hook. Now, you could quibble about how much their reputations have been damaged, but the damage exists.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

20th April 2018, 11:54 AM	#89
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,232	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I have no problem saying if he defamed them he should be found guilty. I thought I did say that. I hope to both the right verdict, and I hope that if the verdict is right, that those families were never harmed. but the verdict would still be 'right' if they were harmed and he's found guilty. this is where your word game comes into play. you only want it to be 'right' if he's found innocent.
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,232

20th April 2018, 09:51 AM	#82
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 I think we all do, just like we all hope for a negative medical test. But your analogy then falls apart. We don't all agree what the correct verdict is. I hope he is found guilt of defamation, because I believe he has defamed people who have suffered damages from his defmation. Also, I'm going to go investigate if Vegas is taking odds on this case. Jones is going to lose, I'd bet money on it given decent odds. I think we do agree what the correct verdict is.

20th April 2018, 11:12 AM	#85
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by Whip One would think the hope would be that the right verdict is delivered whichever way it goes, no? you seem to have a problem admitting that if they were defamed and Jones is found guilty, that would be the 'right verdict' since you insist on stating only that Jones be found not guilty would be the 'right verdict'. you keep dancing around that. I don't think you are alex jones so your medical analogy fails. you have no skin in the game. I have no problem saying if he defamed them he should be found guilty. I thought I did say that. I hope to both the right verdict, and I hope that if the verdict is right, that those families were never harmed.

20th April 2018, 11:13 AM	#86
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by Horatius Yes, if you're going to "hope for" something, you should be hoping for an accurate judgement (or test result). If he's guilty, he should pay up, if you're sick, you want to know it so you can get treatment. But Jones vs. the truth is less "I hope I don't actually have cancer" and more "I hope that isn't actually a knife sticking out of my chest". The problem is so clearly obvious to an unbiased observer that "hoping" it isn't defamation/a knife in your chest is ridiculous. If you're not a Sandy Hook Truther, basically the only way Jones wins this case is if the judge rules that the victims are public persons, and as such, it's okay to defame them. And that's not an outcome any reasonable person should be "hoping" for. There are other ways. A) he never lied B) their reputations were never harmed

20th April 2018, 11:23 AM	#87
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by Whip I don't think you are alex jones so your medical analogy fails. you have no skin in the game. My skin is a general interest of not liking to see people harmed by others. They were likely harmed by Jones (an opinion I try to avoid sharing because I don't think it is appropriate to share judgements, but it feels necessary at this point). I would really like to find out I was wrong about that and they were not harmed.

20th April 2018, 12:00 PM	#90
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by Whip but the verdict would still be 'right' if they were harmed and he's found guilty. this is where your word game comes into play. you only want it to be 'right' if he's found innocent. That makes no sense. Of course I want it right in either case. If someone says I hope the test says I don't have cancer, no one then points out that isn't true if the test is wrong.

20th April 2018, 12:10 PM	#91
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,232	but this is not about cancer or emotions. it's about a legal proceeding.
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,232

20th April 2018, 12:15 PM	#92
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by Whip but this is not about cancer or emotions. it's about a legal proceeding. So? Just like those cases, saying I hope for a certain result does not imply I want that result regardless of truth.

20th April 2018, 12:27 PM	#93
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 19,983	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward So? Just like those cases, saying I hope for a certain result does not imply I want that result regardless of truth. True, it means that you hope for things that we already know are not true We do know that Sandy Hook happened We do know that Alex Jones has claimed it was staged and has accused the parents of being actors We do know that some of the parents have been threatened Your hope has to be that one of those is untrue.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

20th April 2018, 12:28 PM	#94
Venom Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,872	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward My skin is a general interest of not liking to see people harmed by others. They were likely harmed by Jones (an opinion I try to avoid sharing because I don't think it is appropriate to share judgements, but it feels necessary at this point). I would really like to find out I was wrong about that and they were not harmed. I'd like to see him lose so that he'll cry again and look like a fool. And that's the least he can get. Accusing people of mass murder and feeding the hundreds of thousands of conspiracy drones in this country with propaganda is no small thing to me.

20th April 2018, 12:30 PM	#95
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,191	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I also said in a similar post we want tests to be accurate. I want the right verdict. I hope the right verdict is a judgement for Jones because I hope people do not suffer damages. Stop trying to sound philosophical when you can't even matter tense. They either did our did not suffer damages. Your philosophy only functions (not makes sense mind you) when the statement uses the present tense, but we are talking of past actions.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,191

20th April 2018, 12:33 PM	#96
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,191	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward My skin is a general interest of not liking to see people harmed by others. They were likely harmed by Jones (an opinion I try to avoid sharing because I don't think it is appropriate to share judgements, but it feels necessary at this point). I would really like to find out I was wrong about that and they were not harmed. What about Jones? If they have not been harmed he has. So to have any consistency you would have to hope for neither as both contain large amounts of people negatively effected.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,191

20th April 2018, 12:35 PM	#97
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by sadhatter Stop trying to sound philosophical when you can't even matter tense. They either did our did not suffer damages. Your philosophy only functions (not makes sense mind you) when the statement uses the present tense, but we are talking of past actions. I think they did suffer damages. I'm hoping I'm wrong about that.

20th April 2018, 01:06 PM	#98
Axxman300 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Central California Coast Posts: 3,583	They have a case. The first part of a defamation case is providing documentation of Jones making the statement(s), and that won't be a problem. The trick is documenting the damage to the victims, which will mostly be emotional pain. Can they show they've lost work time? Have they been forced into extended therapy due to the false statements? Can they show permanent psychological damage? I'm betting in this case - yes. https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and...he-basics.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...n-lawsuit.html
	__________________ Disingenuous Piranha

20th April 2018, 01:11 PM	#99
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by Axxman300 They have a case. The first part of a defamation case is providing documentation of Jones making the statement(s), and that won't be a problem. The trick is documenting the damage to the victims, which will mostly be emotional pain. Can they show they've lost work time? Have they been forced into extended therapy due to the false statements? Can they show permanent psychological damage? I'm betting in this case - yes. https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and...he-basics.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...n-lawsuit.html I don't understand how the first article explicitly says it hurt reputation, and brought up missing work. Is there only work time lost by reputation or emotional distress? If you skipped work because of distress, but no one at work cared because it didn't affect your reputation, is that harm for purposes of defamation?

20th April 2018, 01:53 PM	#100
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 42,491	Originally Posted by tinribmancer And how big is the chance that he might thrown in behind bars? In a civil suit like this one, almost none.In the US, people do not go to jail when they lose a civil case. Only way this happens is if Jones does something really stupid during the trial, and gets tossed in the slammer for "contempt of court" or fails to obey a court order. . And even that technically is a different offense then his defamaing the Sandy Hook victims.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. Last edited by dudalb; 20th April 2018 at 02:01 PM.

20th April 2018, 01:56 PM	#101
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 19,576	Originally Posted by jimbob We do know that Sandy Hook happened We do know that Alex Jones has claimed it was staged and has accused the parents of being actors We do know that some of the parents have been threatened As to the last, there's even a woman behind bars for issuing death threats. How far is Alex Jones' divorce case? Have the assets already been divided? I hope so, otherwise he'll only suffer half the damage.
	__________________ "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen

20th April 2018, 01:59 PM	#102
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 42,491	You know, it's ironic that people get suspended or kicked off the site for some pretty minor offenses, but a guy who constanly hijacks and disrupts threads get away scot free.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

20th April 2018, 02:07 PM	#103
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by dudalb You know, it's ironic that people get suspended or kicked off the site for some pretty minor offenses, but a guy who constanly hijacks and disrupts threads get away scot free. I expressed my opinion of what I would hope to see happen at a trial for defamation here. That is the topic here.

20th April 2018, 02:16 PM	#104
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,914	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I don't understand how the first article explicitly says it hurt reputation, and brought up missing work. Is there only work time lost by reputation or emotional distress? If you skipped work because of distress, but no one at work cared because it didn't affect your reputation, is that harm for purposes of defamation? If the defamation leads to people harassing you, leaving death threats, and constantly barraging you with disgusting attacks the stress may be enough to cause you to miss work or have other health issues. I understand you personally might be too unempathetic to understand that, but the courts may decide otherwise.
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun! Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

20th April 2018, 02:19 PM	#105
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by kookbreaker If the defamation leads to people harassing you, leaving death threats, and constantly barraging you with disgusting attacks the stress may be enough to cause you to miss work or have other health issues. I understand you personally might be too unempathetic to understand that, but the courts may decide otherwise. It isn't a matter of understanding. The article did not state what you just wrote. And is that defamation or incitement? The guy assaulted at the Trump rally sued for incitement, but I don't know if that was generally speaking, or a specific term in civil suits.

20th April 2018, 02:56 PM	#106
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 19,576	Originally Posted by kookbreaker If the defamation leads to people harassing you, leaving death threats, and constantly barraging you with disgusting attacks the stress may be enough to cause you to miss work or have other health issues. I understand you personally might be too unempathetic to understand that, but the courts may decide otherwise. The major legal hurdle will be, IMHO, to prove the causality of that chain. i.e., that the death threats and barraging was caused by Alex Jones' utterances.
	__________________ "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen

20th April 2018, 03:02 PM	#107
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by ddt The major legal hurdle will be, IMHO, to prove the causality of that chain. i.e., that the death threats and barraging was caused by Alex Jones' utterances. But do they even need to bother with defamation at that point or is that incitement?

20th April 2018, 04:50 PM	#108
Axxman300 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Central California Coast Posts: 3,583	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward But do they even need to bother with defamation at that point or is that incitement? Yes, they need to bother with defamation since it is the only legal recourse they have. Their lawyers wouldn't have filed if they didn't think they had a case.
	__________________ Disingenuous Piranha

20th April 2018, 05:32 PM	#109
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by Axxman300 Yes, they need to bother with defamation since it is the only legal recourse they have. Their lawyers wouldn't have filed if they didn't think they had a case. What makes it different from incitement?

20th April 2018, 05:54 PM	#110
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 18,874	What's this thread about again?
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

20th April 2018, 06:06 PM	#111
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 15,983	Originally Posted by applecorped What's this thread about again? What literally everything thread on this board is about now.
	__________________ - "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset - "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal - "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

20th April 2018, 06:08 PM	#112
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,700	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue What literally everything thread on this board is about now. This is about the lawsuit between the parents from Sandy Hook and Alex jones

20th April 2018, 07:52 PM	#113
Axxman300 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Central California Coast Posts: 3,583	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward What makes it different from incitement? Defamation is provable. Incitement requires admission from one or more CT nutcases that Alex Jones alone made them do it. Harder to prove in court, more complex, and easier to defend against.
	__________________ Disingenuous Piranha

20th April 2018, 08:13 PM	#114
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,992	Originally Posted by Axxman300 They have a case. The first part of a defamation case is providing documentation of Jones making the statement(s), and that won't be a problem. The trick is documenting the damage to the victims, which will mostly be emotional pain. Can they show they've lost work time? Have they been forced into extended therapy due to the false statements? Can they show permanent psychological damage? I'm betting in this case - yes. https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and...he-basics.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...n-lawsuit.html If it were a jury trial I would happily vote for gigantic loss of fundage and prison time for any ******* conservative slime shown to give out lies and/or misleading info about any real people.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,992	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

20th April 2018, 08:14 PM	#115
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,992	Originally Posted by dudalb In a civil suit like this one, almost none.In the US, people do not go to jail when they lose a civil case. Only way this happens is if Jones does something really stupid during the trial, and gets tossed in the slammer for "contempt of court" or fails to obey a court order. . And even that technically is a different offense then his defamaing the Sandy Hook victims. Hope he does!!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,992	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!