Alex Jones...

[Bootstrap]

Back to the subject of this thread ...

Lesson is: Don't say things like the following and make money off of it if you want to keep your assets.

Especially if that turns grieving parents into targets of harassment and death threats. If you make lots of money by making other people suffer, making them targets with outrageously false claims ... their rights matter. And doing that to parents whose children were just killed in school, in a mass atrocity ... I mean, wow.

A chilling case for free speech; we aren't a country that really honours the First Amendment anymore.

Really? How do you interpret the First Amendment? Do you believe that it means you can say whatever you want, true or false, targeting other people and making them suffer? And the victims have no rights at all?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Jones knowingly told lies that exposed these parents to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and threats. He did this when these parents were grieving after their children were killed in a mass atrocity. What rights do you think the parents have here? How should those rights be protected?

[Josh]

Back to the subject of this thread ...

Lesson is: Don't say things like the following and make money off of it if you want to keep your assets.

Especially if that turns grieving parents into targets of harassment and death threats. If you make lots of money by making other people suffer, making them targets with outrageously false claims ... their rights matter. And doing that to parents whose children were just killed in school, in a mass atrocity ... I mean, wow.

Can you explain to me what a defamation lawsuit has to do with death threats?

Did Alex Jones make death threats?

Really? How do you interpret the First Amendment? Do you believe that it means you can say whatever you want, true or false, targeting other people and making them suffer? And the victims have no rights at all?

I think political speech should be protected, and that includes conspiracy theories that you disagree with.

Jones knowingly told lies that exposed these parents to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and threats. He did this when these parents were grieving after their children were killed in a mass atrocity. What rights do you think the parents have here? How should those rights be protected?

You seem to be saying if someone is the subject of a conspiracy theory, they have a right to silence political speech on the topic. I strongly disagree.

The parents could simply choose not to listen to Alex Jones or other conspiracy theorists.

On this forum accusations are frequently made that Amish and Mennonites are child molesters. Should I go and sue everyone doing this for defamation?

[temporal1]

Josh:
The parents could simply choose not to listen to Alex Jones or other conspiracy theorists.

On this forum accusations are frequently made that Amish and Mennonites are child molesters.
Should I go and sue everyone doing this for defamation?

In the least, this is a very hard case for human law.
i haven’t followed, but little, i didn’t listen to Alex Jones, so wasn’t at all affected by him.
It’s possible to ignore him. Who would seek him out? Why?

There are lots of people who dedicate their lives to initiating lawsuits. i’ve come across some in my life.

i’m glad not to have to decide.

[Ernie]

You seem to be saying if someone is the subject of a conspiracy theory, they have a right to silence political speech on the topic.

This was not addressed to me but I would like to respond...
Some conspiracy theories are harmless. A few conspiracy theories turn out to be true. The promotion of some conspiracy theories are extremely emotionally hurtful and physically dangerous when based on outright lies. It is the latter that is being addressed with Alex Jones.
With all of your concern about abuse and bringing abusers into account, I find it perplexing that you are defending an abuser.

I can only imagine the things you would be saying on MN if you lost a child to a mass shooting and Alex said the same things to you and about you that he said to the Sandy Hook families.

[barnhart]

Some conspiracy theories are harmless. A few conspiracy theories turn out to be true. The promotion of some conspiracy theories are extremely emotionally hurtful and physically dangerous when based on outright lies. It is the latter that is being addressed with Alex Jones.
With all of your concern about abuse and bringing abusers into account, I find it perplexing that you are defending an abuser.

I can only imagine the things you would be saying on MN if you lost a child to a mass shooting and Alex said the same things to you and about you that he said to the Sandy Hook families.

Or if Mr. Jones developed a theory that Mennonites are secretly part of a new world order since they often refuse military service and oaths of loyalty and look to a new kingdom for solutions and hope. Then he would encourage his followers to stalk Mennonites, take intrusive pictures and video or follow them around and shout horrible things at them. Or pay his staff to do such things until they feel unsafe enough to relocate in secret and hide under assumed names. This scenario doesn't even take into account the fact he was attacking families grieving violence and murder. He did these things.

[Josh]

You seem to be saying if someone is the subject of a conspiracy theory, they have a right to silence political speech on the topic.

This was not addressed to me but I would like to respond...
Some conspiracy theories are harmless. A few conspiracy theories turn out to be true. The promotion of some conspiracy theories are extremely emotionally hurtful and physically dangerous when based on outright lies. It is the latter that is being addressed with Alex Jones.
With all of your concern about abuse and bringing abusers into account, I find it perplexing that you are defending an abuser.

Saying outlandish things is not being an “abuser”, and in this specific case it is clearly political speech.

I can only imagine the things you would be saying on MN if you lost a child to a mass shooting and Alex said the same things to you and about you that he said to the Sandy Hook families.

I would support anyone’s right to exercise free speech and engage in political speech, even if they were alleging I was part of some government conspiracy. I would also engage in my own speech and say what I think happened.

I would not sue them in court for a billion dollars for saying things I didn’t like.

[Josh]

Some conspiracy theories are harmless. A few conspiracy theories turn out to be true. The promotion of some conspiracy theories are extremely emotionally hurtful and physically dangerous when based on outright lies. It is the latter that is being addressed with Alex Jones.
With all of your concern about abuse and bringing abusers into account, I find it perplexing that you are defending an abuser.

I can only imagine the things you would be saying on MN if you lost a child to a mass shooting and Alex said the same things to you and about you that he said to the Sandy Hook families.

Or if Mr. Jones developed a theory that Mennonites are secretly part of a new world order since they often refuse military service and oaths of loyalty and look to a new kingdom for solutions and hope. Then he would encourage his followers to stalk Mennonites, take intrusive pictures and video or follow them around and shout horrible things at them. Or pay his staff to do such things until they feel unsafe enough to relocate in secret and hide under assumed names. This scenario doesn't even take into account the fact he was attacking families grieving violence and murder. He did these things.

If those things are true (which I doubt), those sound like criminal acts. Why wasn’t he charged for them?

[Bootstrap]

By definition, all defamation, libel, and slander cases are about speech. They are always First Amendment cases because they are always about expression. But the First Amendment is not absolute - in fact, no right is absolute.

Some obvious limits on free speech:

• Child pornography
• Defamation
• Incitement to violence - including political incitement to violence
• Fighting words
• True threats
• False advertisements, promoting illegal goods and services
• Time and manner limits (e.g., age-related ratings on movies)

[Bootstrap]

If those things are true (which I doubt), those sound like criminal acts. Why wasn’t he charged for them?

Because it was his followers, incited by his claims, not Jones himself.

https://apnews.com/article/shootings-sc ... b47d444385

Erica Lafferty said the general harassment began soon after the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, with people telling her it was a hoax and that her mother never died. But soon, she said, it got scary and more graphic.

“Things would be mailed to my house that were threats of rape,” the daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung testified Wednesday.

“There are days when grief is just so awful,” said Hensel, whose 6-year-old daughter Avielle Richman was among the slain. “Then you add on the idea that people think you made all this up for money or that your child didn’t exist. That compounds everything.”

After the shooting, Hensel and her husband, Jeremy Richman, set up a foundation named for their daughter. Soon after, the foundation’s email addresses were flooded with messages saying Avielle did not exist, that Hensel and others were actors and questioning why money was being raised from a fake shooting.

The harassment has continued ever since, Hensel testified. In 2019, after Jeremy Richman died by suicide, friends called Hensel to tell her people were at the cemetery where Avielle was buried looking for evidence her husband had died.

“It was relatively soon after Jeremy’s death and I was still reeling from that and I had to compartmentalize that,” she said. “I couldn’t wrap my head around just one more family member being part of this narrative. It simply doesn’t end.”

Lafferty testified she’s moved five times since the shooting and avoids going out to grocery stores and other public places. She said she’s endured death and rape threats from people telling her that her mother was fictional.

She said she became part of the lawsuit so her niece would know the truth.

“I wanted to make sure that I was at least taking steps to make sure the first thing that came up when she Googled her grandmother’s name wasn’t that she never existed,” she said.

Wheeler, father of 6-year-old victim Ben Wheeler, detailed two instances in which people actually showed up at his home — one demanding to see Ben, insisting he was alive.

He said people also pointed to a student film he made in college as proof he was a “crisis actor.”

“It’s very stressing,” he said.

“It was demeaning. It felt like being delegitimized in a way,” he added. “It makes you feel like you don’t matter.”

[Bootstrap]

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/11152692 ... ones-trial

The father of a 6-year-old boy killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting testified Tuesday that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones made his life a "living hell" by pushing claims that the murders were a hoax involving actors aimed at increasing gun control.

In more than an hour of emotional testimony during which he often fought back tears, Neil Heslin said he has endured online abuse, anonymous phone calls and harassment on the street.

"What was said about me and Sandy Hook itself resonates around the world," Heslin said. "As time went on, I truly realized how dangerous it was. ... My life has been threatened. I fear for my life, I fear for my safety."

Heslin said his home and car have been shot at, and his attorneys said Monday that the family had an "encounter" in Austin after the trial began in the city and have been in isolation under security.