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

originally posted by: UKTruth
It seems that whatever I post, you will pretend I said the opposite.

The only thing that matters is you erroneously believe defamation laws violate the Constitution and that the judge is somehow stifling fat slob's free speech.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
It seems that whatever I post, you will pretend I said the opposite.

The only thing that matters is you erroneously believe defamation laws violate the Constitution and that the judge is somehow stifling fat slob's free speech.

You are again making things up.
Whatever.

Jones is a professional liar. I hope this lawsuit hits him hard.

originally posted by: UKTruth
You are again making things up.

originally posted by: UKTruth
One could argue that defemantion laws themselves are in violation of the 1st amendment

One would be wrong, on both counts.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
You are again making things up.

originally posted by: UKTruth
One could argue that defemantion laws themselves are in violation of the 1st amendment

One would be wrong, on both counts.

I would be actually be correct...as a SC Justice, no less, has argued that very thing and even written opinion on it, I am absolutely correct in saying one could argue that defemantion laws themselves are in violation of the 1st amendment. Note the word 'could'.

I think I at least understand you now. You don't read, you just react.

I have not said that defamation laws violate the 1st amendment.
I have not said that Jones' first amendment rights have been violated.

I have pointed out, also correctly, that
1) The 1st Amendmment has nothing to do with what job a person has. A Govt worker has the same 1st amendment rights as a private sector worker.
2) Defamation laws have throughout history been balanced against the 1st Amendment and the bar is set high for winning a defemation case precisely BECAUSE of 1st Amendment rights.

Jones therefore is indeed protected by his first amendment rights in this case - he didn't lose them because he is being sued by a provate citizen. To suggest he hasm as you have done, is absurd. His 1st Amendment rights mean that he starts this case with the odds stacked in his favour, as is intended.

I am sorry if you can't accept that you were wrong in your assumption that the Govt has to be one side of a law suit in order for 1st Amendment rights to be a consideration, but wrong you were.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would be actually be correct...as a SC Justice, no less, has argued that very thing and even written opinion on it...

You'd still be wrong because one Supreme Court Justice offering an opinion (in favor no less) does not determine a case, the other Justices ruling concurrently made no such distinction therefore defamation laws don't violate the First Amendment as you some doggedly and erroneously believe.

From your own source:

The majority of the Supreme Court did not go as far as Justice Black would have liked.

Defamation laws: Legal. UKTruth: Wrong.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

One Supreme Court Justice making the argument is enough to state that the argument could be made - obviously. I didn't mention that outcome of that argument. Seriously, read and don't just react.

The majority of the Supreme Court did not go as far as Justice Black would have liked.

Indeed - from my link. What they did was to balance the 1st Amendment with the rights of those believing they have been defamed. They considered the 1st Amendment and took a middle ground to ensure the 1st Amendment had 'breathing space' in defamation cases. Quite clearly, therefore, 1st Amendment rights are a key consideration in any defamation case - as they most certainly will be for Jones. Those considerations are why Jones starts with an advantage in his case.

That is actually what I am arguing, to emphasise that you are plain wrong in your misguided notion that where a person works determines whether they have 1st Amendment rights. You may choose to suggest I am arguing a different point if you like. I understand that is what people do when they have lost the actual argument.

originally posted by: UKTruth
One Supreme Court Justice making the argument is enough to state that the argument could be made - obviously.

A guy who knows nothing about the Constitution from another country is enough to make the argument, it doesn't mean it's either correct or going to become reality.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
One Supreme Court Justice making the argument is enough to state that the argument could be made - obviously.

A guy who knows nothing about the Constitution from another country is enough to make the argument, it doesn't mean it's either correct or going to become reality.

Or a guy in the US who knows very little about the constituion could do the same - indeed.
The fact that a SC Justice made the argument and the ruling of the SC was to give the 1st Amendment 'breathing space' in defamation cases, should tell you - pretty emphatically - that defamation cases and the 1st amendment are not unrelated as you so wrongly stated.

I would also hope by now that you understand that a Govt. employee has the same 1st Amendment rights as a private sector employee.

I am surprised it's such a point of contention that Jones will be carrying with him his 1st Amendment rights into this case and as such they will protect him by making the case to prove defamtaion a high bar.

originally posted by: UKTruth

The fact that a SC Justice made the argument...

One. Singular.

Not the Court. Not multiple. One.

As in lone. As in sole.

You seeing a pattern here? The decision as a whole sets legal precedent, not the individual concurrences.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Indeed. So the argument could actually be made and has been made, by a Supreme Court Justice no less.
So my statement was, in fact, entirely correct.

I never said the argument by the SC Justice set a legal precedent. I clearly stated it was his written opinion. It happens to be an opinion I share, but that is besides the point.

What is not an opinion is that the SC properly assessed the 1st Amendment against defamation laws and concluded that the 1st Amendment did in fact have influence and needed consideration.

That is why defamation laws are weighted towards the defendent and the bar is set high for the accuser to prove their case. Where public vs private individuals come into play is simply that public figures have an even higher bar to prove their case if they are suing others - specifically the addiiton of proving malice - in other words it is harder for a public figure to override others 1st Amendment rights via defamation laws.

a reply to: UKTruth


He didn't make an argument, he stated his opinion, just like you are, and just like yours neither holds any legal weight. Someone else needs to make the actual argument before the Court. Notice that no one has?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UKTruth


He didn't make an argument, he stated his opinion, just like you are, and just like yours neither holds any legal weight. Someone else needs to make the actual argument before the Court. Notice that no one has?

Semantics. His written opinion, which is what I stated, was an argument against any law being passed that conflicts with the 1st Amendment and like I said the SC took that particular SC Justice's opinion/argument into consideration and determined exactly what I posted above.

No one said his argument became law. It just influenced to the extent that defamation laws do in fact take into account the protections offered by the 1st Amendment.

You are simply not correct to state that a defamation case can not impinge on 1st Amendment rights unless the govt is involved. The specific scenario here would be if a judge ruled in favour of the claimant against Jones, without all the conditions to prove the case being met. In that scenario, the judge would have not given the "breathing space" to the 1st Amendment that the SC determined appropriate.

I am merely pointing out that this case does have consideration to the 1st Amendment, as do all defamation cases. As a side note, I would also point out that Jones's lawyers are not positioning his show as 'entertainment' for the hell of it. Entertainment is specifically afforded more leeway in terms of using 1st amendment rights in defence of a defamation suit.

Didn't Bill Cooper go out as a criminal loser as well?

originally posted by: UKTruth
Semantics.

No, reality. The majority opinion is what sets the legal precedent, a singular Justice's opinion does not. Defamation laws do not violate the First Amendment.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Semantics.

Defamation laws do not violate the First Amendment.

No one said they did.

Defamation laws have already been balanced with the 1st Amendment, via the SC, to make sure they do not violate the 1st Amendment. It's irrefutable that the SC did in fact recognise that the 1st Amendment must be considered when determining a defamation case.

Therefore, Defamation laws in themselves can not violate the 1st Amendment - however, an incorrect ruling by a judge in a defamation case, not paying proper regard to the 1st Amendment can most certainly violate the 1st Amendment.

originally posted by: UKTruth
No one said they did.

You did, and you based this on one Justice's opinion whom the majority did not even agree with since you don't understand how the Supreme Court functions.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
No one said they did.

You did, and you based this on one Justice's opinion whom the majority did not even agree with since you don't understand how the Supreme Court functions.

You continue to make things up because your argument that the Govt has be part of a defamation case in order for the 1st Amendment to apply is just plain wrong and shows a fundamental lack of knowledge.

Atr least you learned something, even if pride gets in the way of an admission.

originally posted by: UKTruth
You continue to make things up because your argument that the Govt has be part of a defamation case...

It does, the Constitution only prevents the government from curtailing your free speech. The case you keep citing involved a PUBLIC (read: THE GOVERNMENT) official suing a PRIVATE (read: NOT THE GOVERNMENT) citizen. In the course of that case the Supreme Court ruled, after 150 years of tacit understanding across the country, that defamation laws don't violate the Constitution. This was further upheld by subsequent rulings that were supplied.