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.

 

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

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   

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.


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.
The defamation and libel laws are closely linked to the first amendment. The laws set a high bar to win a case precisely because of the need to protect the 1st Amendement. One could argue that defemantion laws themselves are in violation of the 1st amendment

Example opinion : Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in Rosenblatt v. Baer, that no law meant no law and that, as such, all libel laws violate the First Amendment
The Rosenblatt v. Baer case had at it's core the balance between the 1st amendment and libel/defamation.
The court ultimately ruled on a "proper accommodation between protecting reputations and ensuring “breathing space” for First Amendment freedoms".

www.freedomforuminstitute.org...

When an individual sues for defamation they are actually calling on the Govt. to arbitrate and it's the legal system that determines whether, in this case, a media company's 1st amendment rights should be over ridden by the individuals rights to protect themselves from harm caused by what the media company said/ printed.

To suggest that a defamation case has no consideration to the First Amendment because "the goverment is not involved" is just plain wrong.

That said, if Jones loses this case, it most certianly is not "a victory over free speech". It will be a considered decision, balancing his 1st Amendment rights and the damage he caused to the families of the Sandy hook parents.
edit on 13/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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.


Only a brainwashed troll would have the ability to believe the stories on the news.




posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   

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.


It was disgusting to me as well, and it fit past patterns where bribery of citizens by officials, plus bribery from high up officialdom to lower officials has taken place.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

No simple straight answers were ever offered.

And rarely are..which is yet another reason Occam's Razor is a great tool for the foolish to glaze their eyes over with.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   

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.


Alex Jones knows exactly who his audience is. His on screen persona is purposely crafted to appeal to adolescent minded males, with his loud, angry, bombastic, don't give a sh!t attitude.

He built an online empire from essentially nothing. Just himself and public access TV in Austin and the PT Barnum quote....

"There's a sucker born every minute"



btw....the sandy hook official story is garbage. FF from the git go!!





edit on 13-1-2019 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Please Review:



Before some of you cross a line here on ATS that is not allowed and place your account at risk:

**ALL MEMBERS Please read: Sandy Hook** UPDATED 01/21/2013

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   
My guess the reasoning for this judgement is to evaluate whether he actually PAID people to harass these families......

Im surprised no one has brought up that possible aspect for the ruling.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   
What baffles me , is that so many who are against Jones being taken to task or sued, were totally for CNN or other media outlets being sued or taken to task by the president, when he threatened it......

Point being, it wasnt stifling free speech then, and its not stifling it now with jones.......so there should be no double standard

Actions have consequences, and WE as a people have the CONSTITUTIONAL right, to legal recourse through the court system.....
edit on 1/13/2019 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   

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.


I seem to know more 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.

I'll leave you to your thoughts (in this case, uninformed thoughts). You're response makes it clear you're not worth the effort.

edit on 13/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   

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.


Do you? By linking a case in which a op-ed writer was sued by a GOVERNMENT employee and the Supreme Court found that A) It wasn't malicious and B) A state employee can not sue for damages relating to his official conduct unless the official proves actual malice, which they ruled did not occur.

Fatman is a private citizen running his wideload mouth and got sued by other private citizens so: not the same. Call me when you get your Consitutional Law degree and go argue chubby's case before the Supreme Court, I'll be there to watch the hilarity.





edit on 13-1-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Nice swerve.


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.


Where did defamation laws come from?

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.

If you have anything to do with Constitutional law then you already know this, but maybe 'fat man' getting what is due carries more urgency.


edit on 13/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Nice swerve.


Nice job linking a non-relevant court case.


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.


Like I said, call me when you go to argue on lardbutt's behalf using your skewed perspective of the Constitution.

Maybe you can get him to sue me since I am 100% being malicious about him. Fat scuzz that he is.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can see rational thought has lost out to pure hatred of the guy.
For the record, i also think he's a complete nutcase, however I let that slide when discussing the particulars of a case.

Goverment shall make no laws...
Yet they did.. Defamation laws.
How you can conlcude that both are not in conflict with each other only you know. Not even the SC concluded that. They reached a compromise and middle ground.

Rest assured, I won't be calling you. If I need advice, I'll call an expert.


edit on 13/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   

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.


Perhaps you will try and understand that in the majority of defamation cases, the 1st amendment is considered and often significantly so. That in itself corrects your misguided view that the two are unrelated.

Note : your error was that you assumed that the 1st amendment is irrelevant to defamation cases unless the govt. was involved. You could have just corrected that mistake.

Whatever. I understand why you didn't. It was a rather significant error. In fact neither the 1st or 14th amendments address WHO is involved in a case beyond citizens. There is no distinction between Govt employee or not. Those distinctions are part of defamation law.



edit on 13/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:48 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   

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.


Actually that was not my argument.
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.

Defamation laws are specifically balanced against the 1st amendment - as debated on several occasions by the SC.

As for Jones, I couldn't give a flying f*** what happens to him.

edit on 13/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Actually that was not my argument. Perhaps you should read more.


Sure, I'll start by reading this tidbit of wisdom by you:


One could argue that defemantion laws themselves are in violation of the 1st amendment


Uh, no, they are not.


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.



My claim was that the government was not curtailing jerkwad's free speech, this is in fact correct. Your erroneous interjection was then to claim that the judge was A) A United States Government employee, she isn't, she's a Connecticut employee, B) That defamation lawsuits somehow violate the First Amendment as evidenced by the above quote you seem to have forgotten in less than a page and C) That she somehow violated that fat bastard's free speech by allowing the lawsuit to proceed.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join