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

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Given that argument was exactly the one a SC Justice gave opinion on, I'd say that one could indeed argue that point.

"Uh, no they are not" is an irrelevant response as it assumes the conclusion of the argument, which i did not do. Good try, though.

Once again, I am not concluding that the Govt violated free speech in this case, only that you were wrong to state that free speech could NOT be violated unless the Govt was part of a case.

A) yes she is a govt employee.
www.regonline.com...
Indeed she is a govt employee deciding a case based on a law imposed by govt.

B & C ) Erroneous.

originally posted by: UKTruth
"Uh, no they are not" is an irrelevant response as it assumes the conclusion of the argument, which i did not do. Good try, though.

You know what concludes the argument? Jones' attorney, who actually has a law degree unlike you, didn't use your inane argument that defamation laws are un-Constitutional. But, being that you know more than him, maybe you can take up the case and see ****bag through to a positive outcome.

Once again, I am not concluding that the Govt violated free speech in this case, only that you were wrong to state that free speech could NOT be violated unless the Govt was part of a case.

The Constitution, which you are citing, is a list of things the government CANNOT do, it is not a list of things private citizens can or cannot do to each other. No one in the government curtailed whale ass from saying anything.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

For that to conclude the argument, we would have to wipe clean a long history of cases where the 1st Amendment was a defence and those historical opinions and decisions that made the Defemation laws what they are today. Suggesting that is rather moot. How Jones' attorney handles things is up to him.
Personally I think using the 1st Amendment in this case would be a bad move as precedent has already dealt with this question and laid out clear rules for determining liability. This does not, however, remove the very real link between Defamation and the 1st Amendement in US law - links that hold regardless of whether the Defendent or Claimant are govt officials.

Yes, as an example of what the Govt can NOT do, the "Govt can make no law..."
Yet they did... hence the inescapable link between Defamation and the 1st Amendment as evidenced by cases through history. There's simply no getting away from that.

Lets remember the point you made in response to this, by another poster:

This is a victory against free speech...

You:

Why? Is the Govt involved?

The Govt does not need to be either the claimant or the defendent for free speech to be violated.
That's where you were wrong.

originally posted by: UKTruth
For that to conclude the argument, we would have to wipe clean a long history of cases where the 1st Amendment was a defence and those historical opinions and decisions that made the Defemation laws what they are today. Suggesting that is rather moot. How Jones' attorney handles things is up to him.

You obviously like to be pedantic. Your point is irrelevant as no one has argued that defamation suits violate the Constitution. Know why? Because these are private citizens suing each other, the government is not involved.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
For that to conclude the argument, we would have to wipe clean a long history of cases where the 1st Amendment was a defence and those historical opinions and decisions that made the Defemation laws what they are today. Suggesting that is rather moot. How Jones' attorney handles things is up to him.

You obviously like to be pedantic. Your point is irrelevant as no one has argued that defamation suits violate the Constitution. Know why? Because these are private citizens suing each other, the government is not involved.

Full circle to where you are actually wrong. Good.
See post above.

Pedantic? Maybe, but also correct - and I try to correct things that are obviously wrong.
Of course defamation suits can violate the Constitution - the 1st Amendment in fact. That would depend wholly on whether the ruling is actually in line with Defamation law and sticks to the rules to balance defamation law and the 1st Amendment that have already been discussed as high as the SC.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Xtrozero

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

I agree such as don't listen to him and he losses his listener base. Once you go beyond that I see it as a restriction of one of our basic freedoms, just because someone doesn't like the speech...

originally posted by: UKTruth
Full circle to where you are actually wrong. Good.

Am I? Has wide load's attorney taken this route? No. Guess I'm not wrong then.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
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.

So you got one official answer and 999 conspiracies and still only one of them will be true... Show me one that doesn't spiral down never ending paths..

I haven't seen one that can pass any kind logistics test for it to actually work.

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

That is the topic.
Stick to it!!!!!!!!!!!



You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

OK, NVM
Back on topic.

As long as the case against Jones is decided on the criteria in place that give the 1st Amendment "breathing space" as the SC put it, then the 1st amendment will not have been violated.

originally posted by: UKTruth
As long as the case against Jones is decided on the criteria in place that give the 1st Amendment "breathing space" as the SC put it, then the 1st amendment will not have been violated.

The court case linked had to do with a government employee, no one in this case is.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
As long as the case against Jones is decided on the criteria in place that give the 1st Amendment "breathing space" as the SC put it, then the 1st amendment will not have been violated.

The court case linked had to do with a government employee, no one in this case is.

The 1st Amendment has zero to do with who is involved in this case or any other - and it never has.
Jones is protected under the 1st Amendment regardless of who is suing him.
In order for his 1st Amendment rights to be irrelevant in this case the claimant must meet the criteria laid out in defamation law. These criteria have specifically been put in place to give the 1st Amendment "breathing space" - as coined by the SC.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: AspiringSorcerer
This is a victory against free speech, and if you can't understand that then there is no helping you. If you're cheering for the censorship of anyone, including people you personally disagree with no matter how insane you think they are, you don't believe in the fundamental freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights. For everyone pushing the silencing of others, are you 100% certain this could never be used against your "side"?

This is free speech in action.

Jones is free to broadcast whatever he wants. The victims of his broadcast are free to step up and say "you are a filthy liar and you can't prove that and I'm suing you for slander."

He was free to try the "it's just entertainment" trope.

The law was free to say "And a ruling of slander against you is entertaining as well. Pay up."

Free speech doesn't mean "no consequences."

I think you hit all the nail square on the head. I could not agree with the way you put that more.

I'd add like all rights, you only have them until you step on other peoples rights. I hope this makes all talk show hosts think a little more about who their words and actions might be harming.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The 1st Amendment has zero to do with who is involved in this case or any other - and it never has.

You're kidding, right? The entire Bill of Rights outlines what the government cannot do. It has no comment on what private citizens say or do to each other.

Jones is protected under the 1st Amendment regardless of who is suing him.

No, he isn't, as evidenced by this case going to trial.

In order for his 1st Amendment rights to be irrelevant in this case the claimant must meet the criteria laid out in defamation law.

His First Amendment rights are irrelevant because the government is not the one suing him. Your lack of knowledge about the Constitution is showing. The Supreme Court disagrees with you:

In deciding Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that opinions can be defamatory and that no broad constitutional shield for the expression of defamatory opinions is appropriate. It was the first time the Court addressed whether libel laws were applicable to expressions of opinion.

'No broad Constitutional shield', seems pretty clear that fatboy doesn't get covered. For the majority of the country's history libel and slander were not even addressed by the Court in regards the First Amendment, it was left to the individual states to handle this:

Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not".

Another example of why we need monero, backers need anonymity to avoid harassment and silencing, this is only a fight against free speech. It should be made physically impossible to know who the backers are, that is the only way free speech can be defended. As otherwise supporters themselves will be targeted, to silence thought and speech.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

No, he isn't, as evidenced by this case going to trial.

The courts are filled with activists judges willing to not only bend but break the law and create law out of thin air, without further evidence I cannot know whether this is one of those cases or not. Yes even the supremes have at times ruled against the constitution itself.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fella. Yes, the entire Bill of Rights does indeed spell out what the govt cant do.
For example, it can pass no law to abridge the right to free speech.

Yet it did with defamation laws. Hence the conflict and why the SC debated it and took a middle ground making defamation laws damn hard to win. The "breathing space" for the 1st Amendment.

This has nothing to do with who is suing who. The 1st Amendment applies to all citizens, regardless of where they work.

For Jones, as long as the high bar to prove defamation is met, then he will get the punishment he deserves. Any whiff that the bar has not been reached yet he is punished anyway, at the hands of an activist judge, for example...and we will indeed have a situation where Jones 1st Amendment rights have been violated.

As i said before, correctly, it could also be argued that the defamation laws themselves, no matter how favourable they are to the defendant, are unconstitutional, as a SC Justice opinion has stated. For now the obvious conflict remains.

As for 'No broad constitutional shield'... why do you think the word 'broad' is used?. The ruling is that the 1st Amendment is not a complete protection against defamation. If it were not relevant at all, then the ruling would have said 'No constitutional shield'.

The way defamation laws make it hard for a claimant to win is BECAUSE of the 1st Amendment. For Jones in this case, that is how he is protected by his 1st Amendment rights.

By the way. It was you who 'closed' the debate based on Jones' lawyers approach. Whilst i don't agree that is a basis for concluding the debate, i will add this from his lawyer:

“Alex Jones and InfoWars are not responsible for this tragedy. To punish them for First Amendment-protected speech on this matter of public concern will not bring back the lives lost.”

originally posted by: Xenogears

The courts are filled with activists judges willing to not only bend but break the law and create law out of thin air...

This is a tort, not a Constitutional case.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Fella. Yes, the entire Bill of Rights does indeed spell out what the govt cant do.

No, the Constitution is not what the government can do, it clearly says what is not listed is in the power of the states. If you're going to argue the structure of our laws at least have the common sense to understand them prior to posting.

For example, it can pass no law to abridge the right to free speech.

Yet it did with defamation laws.

You still here with this? When you going to help fatman win his case with your First Amendment-violating legal principal?

This has nothing to do with who is suing who. The 1st Amendment applies to all citizens, regardless of where they work.

No, it doesn't. I posted the Court's most recent ruling on the matter, you're wrong. Also, First Amendment rights in the private world are very limited. I could hire you and tell you to STFU if you discuss certain things at work that I DON'T LIKE. And guess what? Tough crap, you need to deal with it our find a new job.

... it could also be argued that the defamation laws themselves, no matter how favourable they are to the defendant, are unconstitutional, as a SC Justice opinion has stated. For now the obvious conflict remains.

You're still in that hole brohan. Stop digging. The Court says they are, go back up and read their opinion again.

“Alex Jones and InfoWars are not responsible for this tragedy. To punish them for First Amendment-protected speech on this matter of public concern will not bring back the lives lost.”

Maybe's he's reading your posts, good on you. I hope he is since it will guarantee blimpo will lose.

a reply to: UKTruth

“Alex Jones and InfoWars are not responsible for this tragedy. To punish them for First Amendment-protected speech on this matter of public concern will not bring back the lives lost.”

no it won't bring back the dead, but it might make others a little hesitant when they go to publish their family's new addresses, phone numbers and other personal information while the talking heads like jones keep the embers hot in the hearts of their followers who then tend to find that new information every time they move so they continue the harassment!

any freedom can and will be taken away when the ones using it are being so irresponsible!! if you see your freedom being attacked, then blame the ones, like jones, that are being so danged irresponsible with that freedom, not the ones that have been living with harassment for years, who are having to move time and again, because those talking heads are spreading complete bs for political or monetary gain!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It seems that whatever I post, you will pretend I said the opposite.

My quote:

Yes, the entire Bill of Rights does indeed spell out what the govt cant do.

Your response:

No, the Constitution is not what the government can do

Hmm.
Weird.

After that point I didn't read the rest. I am sure it was riveting , though.