Sandy Hook families win court victory against Alex Jones, can review InfoWars financials

More thought-policing. He said things, people didn’t like it, end of.

History never looks kindly on the inquisitors, and almost always defends the heretic. Guess which side you’re on?

a reply to: UKTruth Your welcome for the video. Actually took a min to find. But after about a min in he could have simply added three words and saved his bum bum from all this crap.
I don't like the dude at all except for some good chuckles here and there but if he was being persecuted for using his right to free speech I would defend him.
But that is not the case here. He will lose in court no matter how much money he throws at it(assuming out court system is no pay to play) and deserves it.
I don't care if the incident was fake or not but you can't make bogus claims with zero evidence to back it up. Simple as that man.
Even Trump has sued others for making claims about him. Though most the time those "others" used 3 words that can save your bum in court.

I'll make such a statement right now for example.

"Mr. Trump licks poop off the lawn every morning in my opinion."

Take away those 3 last words and well I may be in court soon.

originally posted by: Propagandalf
More thought-policing. He said things, people didn’t like it, end of.

History never looks kindly on the inquisitors, and almost always defends the heretic. Guess which side you’re on?

This thread does highlight really well what you are talking about. It's pretty clear that an emotional response / feelings have overtaken reason and the need for due process to the extent where it doesn't matter when solid facts about the current stage of the case or the actual laws are pointed out.

The hatred for Jones has taken over and the reaction.... "Buuuurrrrnnn the witch!!!!".
The most stunning example of this is a post I won't single out, but it is essentially 'here is what he said, he's guilty'.

If the guilt by feelings trend is allowed to continue for very much longer, things get very very ugly, very quickly.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

No, you could say "Mr trump kicks poop off his lawn every morning" with complete impunity under the US Constitution. You don't need to say 'in my opinion'.

I'll just post this here again:

Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff;
Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact;
Acted either negligently or with actual malice;

It needs to be all three. The bar to win a defamation case is a high one and is designed to be that way.
It's even higher when it's a public fuigure who is suing for defamation.... so you'd be completely safe with your Trump comment.

Alex Jones has been sued before. He's been through discovery before. The case is at the very start.
Nothing has happened that will now cause a 'big reveal' of his finances and nothing has happened that has given the Sandy Hook parents lawyers a win to the extent they are just about to rifle through his finances to think up how big the cheque should be.

Too many conclusions are being drawn with disregard for the law and due process - worse, actually making things up. All driven by hatred instead of common sense.

Wait to see what happens.
If Jones loses this case, then he'll have to pay up - as he has before. Time will tell, and hopefully after due process, not to satisfy some primal need to destroy that which we hate.

What happened to Leonard Pozner lawsuit against Wolfgang Halbig. Leonard Pozner for some reasondropped it, when it came time for his deposition.

a reply to: UKTruth

It is not "essentially 'here is what he said, he's guilty'."
It is what he said man. That is against the law and even defined by what you said he didn't do but the video proves that is what he did. Cut and clear man. Anyone the reads your post vs. min will notice I proved to you that is exactly what he did. And considering the forum type I do believe you can use my name or any others as long as you don't make a personal attack.
Could be wrong on that as it's been awhile since I read the T&C.

a reply to: UKTruth

Maybe I putting too much faith in our justice system here but if the judge ordered him to do so then maybe the plaintiffs have a strong case. I am no expert here but "IMO"(hehe) they have a very strong case against him.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: UKTruth

Maybe I putting too much faith in our justice system here but if the judge ordered him to do so then maybe the plaintiffs have a strong case. I am no expert here but "IMO"(hehe) they have a very strong case against him.

I'd say they have a strong enough case against him for it not to be thrown out of court. I'd say that because that is what the judge's ruling actually meant.
I think the case will rest not on whether he actually published falsehoods... it at least seems he did (though part of the case will be to prove them false). It will be more on whather material damage was caused and whether Jones was acting negligently or malicously. The latter point is why the judge ruled that private emails and texts need to be shared (that's a bigger point than revealing his finances). By the way, the discovery of finances actually has nothing to do with how much he might be sued for, as is inferred in the OP, it is to do with the defendents claims that he specifically made profit from falsely reporting and sensationalising on this case.

The case is progressing according to due process, not because a determination has been made.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: UKTruth

It is not "essentially 'here is what he said, he's guilty'."
It is what he said man. That is against the law and even defined by what you said he didn't do but the video proves that is what he did. Cut and clear man. Anyone the reads your post vs. min will notice I proved to you that is exactly what he did. And considering the forum type I do believe you can use my name or any others as long as you don't make a personal attack.
Could be wrong on that as it's been awhile since I read the T&C.

Defamation is not solely about what someone said.
That's the point - jumping from what someone said to a determination of guilt/liability in this case without establishing the other parts of a defamation case ignores the law. So the video proves he said something. That is actually not in debate, so there was no need to prove it.

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
Jones is a pawn in a big game of chess

From the op

For those of you unfamiliar, Alex suffered a number of blows over the last two years that has severely set both him and his little conspiracy network back. The biggest blow, thus far, in my opinion was having his content either barred or significantly limited on various major social media platforms, including Youtube and Twitter.

When you are targeted this way they are afraid of your voice and they need you gone more than likely.

This thread is misleading. It should read "The Lawyers Representing Six Sandy Hook Families Get to Go Over Info wars Financial Records to See if There is Anything Worth Suing For."

a reply to: Southern Guardian
He sounded to much like a shock jock to me. Tried to listen to one show made it about 2 minuites and never turned it back on.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
This thread is misleading. It should read "The Lawyers Representing Six Sandy Hook Families Get to Go Over Info wars Financial Records to See if There is Anything Worth Suing For."

Better still:

"The Lawyers Representing Six Sandy Hook Families Get to Go Over Infowars documents as part of the discovery process in a defamation law suit, after Alex Jones fails to get the case thrown out".

The thread is, however, more sensational and is indeed misleading.

a reply to: soundguy

So if you only say nice things. . . bad things won't happen to you!





Sooooo authoritarian.

originally posted by: AspiringSorcerer
This is a victory against free speech...

How? Is the government involved? No. So Gay Frog can suck it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

As has been pointed out, free speech is not freedom from consequence.

He sounded to much like a shock jock to me. Tried to listen to one show made it about 2 minuites and never turned it back on.

Same here. Part of his appeal to his audience I guess. They like that sort of style.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: UKTruth

Why? That OP would have sounded exactly the same coming from the majority of people.

Jones pushing the shooting was some form of sick hoax is deserving of nothing less than utter disdain. As is Jones. The fact that he himself probably doesn't believe it makes it worse.

More power to those folks, and I wish 'em well.

No, this is not exactly correct and you know it.

That event narrative is literally impossible from a myriad of angles and is clearly a lie from the get go.

No matter what...someone is lying massively about Sandy Hook.

ALL things are possible when coverups exist.

It is beyond tiresome the religious pandering style of swallowing lies to protect something.

The lid needs to be blown OFF everything in this world...this case is no different just because"children".