It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: AspiringSorcerer
This is a victory against free speech...
How? Is the government involved? No. So Gay Frog can suck it.
originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: AtlasHawk
My biggest issue with Sandy Hook case is still the official narrative i am still not sold by it. dont get me wrong i am not saying it was a hoax or anything like that but the whole story just doesn't add up.
Ok, so you question the narrative but you're not saying it's a hoax.
Are you questioning the massacre ever happened? Are you questioning whether those families actually lost children? Or are you questioning the way in which the massacre was reported? Not convinced by the shooter? Don't get me wrong Atlas I'm not trying to cut you down, just trying to understand.
I know the media and local officials can get things wrong, or can mislead.
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Alex Jones deserves everything he gets for what he done to those families in my view. I hope his entire fake-news empire burns and he is financially crippled.
Some might disagree but that’s my opinion on this, his videos regarding that tragedy we’re disgusting.
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Alex Jones deserves everything he gets for what he done to those families in my view. I hope his entire fake-news empire burns and he is financially crippled.
Some might disagree but that’s my opinion on this, his videos regarding that tragedy we’re disgusting.
What did he do to the families other than exposing the obvious that they were the creepiest..weirdest..and by far the weakest controlled unquestioning group of "people" that one could imagine.
Putting up with and defending the official stories that came out and not standing up for their children and demanding the truth looks disgusting and incomprehensible to me.
originally posted by: 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.
Same here. Part of his appeal to his audience I guess. They like that sort of style.
originally posted by: UKTruth
Yes, the Govt. is involved. The last decision not to throw the case out was made by a judge, a representative of the US Govt.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: UKTruth
Yes, the Govt. is involved. The last decision not to throw the case out was made by a judge, a representative of the US Govt.
That's not the United States Government stifling his free speech. I don't expect foreigners to understand how our Constitution functions and what the enumerated right to free speech in the First Amendment entails, a judge allowing a lawsuit to proceed is not in any way curtailing lard ass from saying anything. He can pop off all he wants, and when fatty boombah gets sued for defamation, like this, I can point and laugh at this moronic toad.
originally posted by: UKTruth
It must be hard to take that I seem to know than you about the 1st amendment and the historical ties to the defamation laws, but it is what it is. I tried to make it clear to you by linking one of the key cases, but alas.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
originally posted by: UKTruth
Nice swerve.
As the linked case(s) point out, that question was at the core of the SC deliberations, so quite clearly defamation laws have indeed been balanced against the 1st amendment. To suggest otherwise and that defamation laws have nothing to do with the 1st emendment is plain wrong. Simple.
originally posted by: UKTruth
How you can conlcude that both are not in conflict with each other only you know.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: UKTruth
How you can conlcude that both are not in conflict with each other only you know.
Maybe when you get back to your Constitutional studies you'll find the numerous cases where the Supreme Court ruled there are certain limits on free speech which is why the plantiffs are able to sue fatass.
originally posted by: UKTruth
[
Perhaps you will try and understand that in the majority of defamation cases, the 1st amendment is considered and often significantly so.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: UKTruth
[
Perhaps you will try and understand that in the majority of defamation cases, the 1st amendment is considered and often significantly so.
Who cares even if that were the case? Your misguided argument is that defamation laws violate the First Amendment, they don't.
If you feel otherwise get your law degree and go argue before the Supreme Court. Otherwise suck it up since fatty is gonna get his hippo ass ridden hard in this case.
originally posted by: UKTruth
Actually that was not my argument. Perhaps you should read more.
One could argue that defemantion laws themselves are in violation of the 1st amendment
What I said is that it is wrong to state that defamation laws are not relevant to the 1st Amendment if the Govt is not involved. That was your claim, which was entirely incorrect.