Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:05 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,308
About fucking time. The Sandy Hook families are suing Alex Jones for defamation

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/b...andy-hook.html

Quote:
Three parents whose children were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 filed a defamation lawsuit on Tuesday against Alex Jones, the right-wing conspiracy theorist who has long claimed the shooting was “completely fake” and a “giant hoax” perpetrated by opponents of the Second Amendment.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #2  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:19 PM
Beckdawrek Beckdawrek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: So.Ark ?
Posts: 6,074
I hope they stomp him in the ground. That just makes me sick.
  #3  
Old 04-17-2018, 11:17 PM
The Stainless Steel Rat The Stainless Steel Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Close to the Saturn V
Posts: 8,400
Wesley Clark, I can only believe that they have been collecting 'evidence' on Jones all of these years, proving defamation in a court of law is harder than just hearing crap on the radio (note: IANAL). My guess is that they waited until they had what they believe is an air-tight case so that Jones wil have no option but to put up (prove his contention, which is probably impossible (and 'probably' is looking for a flight out of town) or lose another chunk of whatever he's collected from his minions.

I could use the old, sneering adage "it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy", but IMHO there is nothing nice about Mr. Jones and I hope he takes another whuppin' in court.
__________________
Waking a person unnecessarily should not be considered a capital crime. For a first offense, that is.
**"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"
  #4  
Old 04-18-2018, 12:19 AM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stainless Steel Rat View Post
Wesley Clark, I can only believe that they have been collecting 'evidence' on Jones all of these years, proving defamation in a court of law is harder than just hearing crap on the radio
True, obviously, and I think they have a good chance at being able to do it. Even if you apply the most stringent possible test for defamation (the umbrella term which includes both libel and slander), actual malice, I think they'll still be able to clear the bar:
Quote:
The existence of actual malice may be shown in many ways, as long as the claim is properly supported by admissible evidence.[7] Malice may be proved through any competent evidence, either direct or circumstantial. All of the relevant circumstances surrounding the transaction may be shown, provided they are not too remote, including threats, other defamatory statements, subsequent statements made by the defendant, any circumstances that indicate the existence of rivalry, ill will, or hostility between the parties, and facts that tend to show a reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights on the part of the defendant.[7]
Jones knew that people had gone all the way to shooting up the pizza place featured in the Pizzagate conspiracy theory he peddled on his show, and here he is, peddling the conspiracy theory that these parents are all crisis actors, people putting on a fake show for the media as part of a sinister plot to destroy gun rights in this country as prelude to a globalist takeover. That is reckless disregard.

And they might not even have to clear that bar. The question is whether the plaintiffs are public figures. I don't know if they are, and I think it's a bit ambiguous: They're connected to a famous tragedy, but they haven't sought the spotlight the way David Hogg, for example, has. If they're not public figures, the bar for defamation becomes lower, and the plaintiffs' cases become a lot easier.
  #5  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:20 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckdawrek View Post
I hope they stomp him in the ground. That just makes me sick.
This. Under the circumstances it seems likely he'll offer to settle out of court. I hope the Sandy Hook families choose not to do so, and instead shine an unpleasant, enduring spotlight on him in court, followed by an award of damages much bigger than his settlement offer. It'd be awfully hard on them, since it all revolves around the murder of their children - but if they can see it through, they will have done a public service.
  #6  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:50 AM
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 13,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
This. Under the circumstances it seems likely he'll offer to settle out of court.
I hope not as well. Depending on the venue rules, they might ask for $x but if the jury is incensed enough the award could be a lot higher.

Money is nice, but it's not going to be Jones' money, it'll be coming from his personal insurance policy most likely. This won't affect him at all in any meaningful way. But I wonder if they can also seek a non-monetary award, such as, "Jones has to shut the hell up about everything forever". Or something like that.
  #7  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:55 AM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 25,558
I hope the remaining families join the suit and each gets awarded a large sum, like $10 million.
  #8  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:07 AM
Chefguy Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 39,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
This. Under the circumstances it seems likely he'll offer to settle out of court. I hope the Sandy Hook families choose not to do so, and instead shine an unpleasant, enduring spotlight on him in court, followed by an award of damages much bigger than his settlement offer. It'd be awfully hard on them, since it all revolves around the murder of their children - but if they can see it through, they will have done a public service.
It is impossible to believe that any jury will not find for them in a huge way. There has probably never been a more sympathetic complainant. I hope they take him down hard.
__________________
I love this post so much that I want to kidnap it, take it to the underworld, and make it my bride. - Interglactic Gladiator
  #9  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:19 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 76,406
Factual question: Is he being sued for defaming the families of the dead children, or the dead children themselves? Or both? Is it legally possible to defame the dead?
  #10  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:20 AM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,148
I think Alex Jones is an idiot, but I wonder how far this suit will get. IANAL, but doesn't a defamation lawsuit have to show actual damage. One man yelling "crisis actors" compared to the entire rest of the American media telling the truth doesn't seem to me to cause any harm to reputation. And doesn't entertainment media enjoy a privileged position effectively shielding him from claims of defamation.

I hope the families prevail, but I just dont see it.

mc
  #11  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:33 AM
jtur88 jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 14,114
IANAL but I hope the law is that to be guilty of defamation, a person would need to know there was a lack of evidence against those defamed. Jones, as I understand it, could point to existing evidence that a reasonable person could concur would appear on its face to cast aspersions on those defamed.

Jones' defense then would be to say Look here, I have reasonable cause for believing these people did what I said they did, and as a protected citizen, I would hope that the conviction need not be on whether the data was later found factually correct, but whether a reasonable person might believe it is plausible.

To take it to an extreme, if Leonard Pelletier is exonerated, does he have a defamation case against everyone who believed the evidence against him was compelling, and publicly said so? A defamation case should not hinge on whether you were wrong, but rather whether you knew you were wrong and defamed anyway.
  #12  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:46 AM
John Bredin John Bredin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Des Plaines, IL (Chicago)
Posts: 1,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
IANAL but I hope the law is that to be guilty of defamation, a person would need to know there was a lack of evidence against those defamed. Jones, as I understand it, could point to existing evidence that a reasonable person could concur would appear on its face to cast aspersions on those defamed.

Jones' defense then would be to say Look here, I have reasonable cause for believing these people did what I said they did, and as a protected citizen, I would hope that the conviction need not be on whether the data was later found factually correct, but whether a reasonable person might believe it is plausible.
A reasonable person believes that the kids killed in a school, and their parents, were actually crisis actors and nobody died at Sandy Hook? Despite a parade of local police, paramedics, hospital personnel, media, neighbors, etc. who actually saw the aftermath of the shootings including dead and wounded children? There aren't enough for that in the entire universe!

[Incredulous reaction off]Yes, I presume that would be his defense. I think we can be fairly certain it isn't going to work, though.
  #13  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:56 AM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 25,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
And doesn't entertainment media enjoy a privileged position effectively shielding him from claims of defamation.
Reading the About Alex Jones Show page on his website, I get the sense that he presents his show and himself not as entertainment but as a news show.

"The Alex Jones Show is now syndicated on over 160 stations across the country and routinely breaks huge stories in addition to featuring some of the most insightful and news making guests from across the world."

"By establishing a team of news reporters who provide cutting edge analysis and on the ground high tech breaking coverage, Infowars.com continually dominates the news coverage while wearing our bias - the truth - openly and proudly on our sleeve."

"Alex's mainstay is his nationally syndicated news-talk show produced from his studio in Austin and broadcast on the Genesis Communication Network, based in Minnesota."
  #14  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:59 AM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Factual question: Is he being sued for defaming the families of the dead children, or the dead children themselves? Or both? Is it legally possible to defame the dead?
I'm not a US lawyer, but generally speaking under English common law it is not possible to defame dead people.

However, statements about dead people can damage the reputations of the living.

My assumption is that the defamation claims are brought on behalf of the living -- the families of the dead children.
  #15  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:23 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 10,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
I'm not a US lawyer, but generally speaking under English common law it is not possible to defame dead people.

However, statements about dead people can damage the reputations of the living.

My assumption is that the defamation claims are brought on behalf of the living -- the families of the dead children.
The "parents" who are accused of making up this whole thing about having dead children are the ones being defamed. He's calling them liars and frauds.
  #16  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:25 AM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
I think Alex Jones is an idiot, but I wonder how far this suit will get. IANAL, but doesn't a defamation lawsuit have to show actual damage. One man yelling "crisis actors" compared to the entire rest of the American media telling the truth doesn't seem to me to cause any harm to reputation. And doesn't entertainment media enjoy a privileged position effectively shielding him from claims of defamation.

I hope the families prevail, but I just dont see it.

mc
The privilege goes the other way: a public figure, someone who willingly courts fame, must prove "actual malice" if *they* wish to pursue a defamation case against someone *they* claim has defamed them.

Thing is, the Sandy Hook parents are not public figures in this sense, so the "actual malice" test probably doesn't apply to claims brought by them (though this sort of thing varies by state, so who knows).

Even assuming "actual malice" is the standard, it is arguably one Mr. Jones' statements can meet: it is demonstrated by a 'reckless disregard' for the truth, not taking even the minimal care a reasonable person ought to take to ensure the statements were true.

There are also defenses against libel, like "fair comment" on public events, appropriate where the targets of the statements are ordinary folks and not celebrities, ordinary folk who get caught up in public events. The Sandy Hook massacre is clearly a public event, so "fair comment" ought to apply.

However, "fair comment" only applies to opinions. Even the most outrageous opinions about public events are shielded ... but it doesn't apply to outrageously untrue *facts*. Under this defense, you can say whatever you think about events, however offensive ("those kids who were shot, I think they had it coming"). You cannot make up facts about events ("those kids were not shot, the parents just invented it all").

As for damages, I understand that yes some must be proved before an award of "presumed" damages (for humiliation and the like) may be made. Evidence that these families have been harassed and stalked by crazy people who believe the lies spread by Mr. Jones, which I understand actually happened, would probably suffice.

Usual disclaimer: I'm not a US lawyer and certainly not one from the whatever state this is to be litigated in. So take the above with a big grain of salt.
  #17  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:27 AM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
The "parents" who are accused of making up this whole thing about having dead children are the ones being defamed. He's calling them liars and frauds.
Yup, exactly.

So the fact that dead people can't be defamed isn't an issue here.
  #18  
Old 04-18-2018, 02:40 PM
tim-n-va tim-n-va is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,094
I am not a regular viewer but occasionally have watched clips. IIRC, he presents a lot of his “info” with wiggle room using phrases like “I don’t know, but these are unanswered questions”. Does that help in defending this in court?
  #19  
Old 04-18-2018, 02:47 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 25,558
I would hope it wouldn't help in defending this in court. Imagine being one of those parents; your child was murdered at the age of six or seven along with a bunch of his or her classmates by a maniac and now these idiots are denying that this happened and that your child never existed.
  #20  
Old 04-18-2018, 02:53 PM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim-n-va View Post
I am not a regular viewer but occasionally have watched clips. IIRC, he presents a lot of his “info” with wiggle room using phrases like “I don’t know, but these are unanswered questions”. Does that help in defending this in court?
Heh, it's an old technique, "just asking questions". Sometimes abbreviated as "JAQing off".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Will it work? My guess is that it will not.

A court is, I imagine, going to look at the communication as a whole and attempt to determine if the person making the statement is really "asking a question" or simply using the turn of phrase as a means of making an assertion. The issue being how a reasonable viewer would interpret it.

Again, I'm not a US lawyer, so who knows ...
  #21  
Old 04-18-2018, 02:55 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim-n-va View Post
I am not a regular viewer but occasionally have watched clips. IIRC, he presents a lot of his “info” with wiggle room using phrases like “I don’t know, but these are unanswered questions”. Does that help in defending this in court?
The law isn’t run by magic words. The question will come down to what his listeners are foreseeably likely to believe, and their subsequent acts of threats and harassment will be relevant.
  #22  
Old 04-18-2018, 03:17 PM
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 13,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
The law isn’t run by magic words. The question will come down to what his listeners are foreseeably likely to believe, and their subsequent acts of threats and harassment will be relevant.
That, and how likely the jury is to sympathize with him vs. the plaintiffs. If the jury doesn't like him, they don't have to accept his weasly language. This case has bad facts for the defense, there may be nothing they can do to compel the plaintiffs to settle outside of court. I've a feeling this isn't about the money.

Last edited by Inigo Montoya; 04-18-2018 at 03:18 PM.
  #23  
Old 04-18-2018, 04:27 PM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 15,963
The jury is directed to acquit. Alex Jones' show is just entertainment, parody. The First Amendment may not allow you to yell 'Fire!' in a theater, but it lets you tell obvious jokes.

Jones will continue to proclaim on-air that he's 100% serious, but he won't be under oath then. On the stand in a courtroom, he and his lawyers will be laughing about the idea that anyone could take him seriously. His fans will never know about this — Fox News will report only on his acquittal, not the reason why.

Sorry. Next case.

ETA: "Acquit" is probably the wrong word in a civil trial. Sue me!

Last edited by septimus; 04-18-2018 at 04:29 PM.
  #24  
Old 04-18-2018, 04:48 PM
Nawth Chucka Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Whites elevated; UT
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
IANAL but I hope the law is that to be guilty of defamation, a person would need to know there was a lack of evidence against those defamed. Jones, as I understand it, could point to existing evidence that a reasonable person could concur would appear on its face to cast aspersions on those defamed.

Jones' defense then would be to say Look here, I have reasonable cause for believing these people did what I said they did, and as a protected citizen, I would hope that the conviction need not be on whether the data was later found factually correct, but whether a reasonable person might believe it is plausible.

To take it to an extreme, if Leonard Pelletier is exonerated, does he have a defamation case against everyone who believed the evidence against him was compelling, and publicly said so? A defamation case should not hinge on whether you were wrong, but rather whether you knew you were wrong and defamed anyway.
If you're not a lawyer, what did you mean when you said were an attorney?

May the families win - win big, bankrupt Jones and chill the other maniacs out there from continuing to spread their profitable lies that hurt and divide people.
  #25  
Old 04-18-2018, 05:00 PM
ftg ftg is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 16,505
I have my doubts no matter how tight the case they have is.

1. There will be at least one person who claims to be unbiased but is a big fan of Alex Jones or his ilk who will end up on the jury and vote for him no matter the evidence.

2. The outcome of the the Deans suing G. Gorldon Liddy over the latter calling Mrs. Dean basically a hooker. Hung jury and dismissal. Liddy was beside himself with joy and was considered untouchable regarding similar lawsuits.

Note: Parody is not, repeat not, grounds from immunity to lawsuits. Esp. of this kind. People have overgeneralized some limited cases.
  #26  
Old 04-18-2018, 05:10 PM
friedo friedo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 23,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The jury is directed to acquit. Alex Jones' show is just entertainment, parody. The First Amendment may not allow you to yell 'Fire!' in a theater, but it lets you tell obvious jokes.

Jones will continue to proclaim on-air that he's 100% serious, but he won't be under oath then. On the stand in a courtroom, he and his lawyers will be laughing about the idea that anyone could take him seriously. His fans will never know about this — Fox News will report only on his acquittal, not the reason why.
That argument didn't work in his child custody case.

Whether it will work in a defamation case, I have no idea. The bar for defamation is very high.
  #27  
Old 04-18-2018, 05:19 PM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
On the stand in a courtroom, he and his lawyers will be laughing about the idea that anyone could take him seriously.
To which the opposing lawyers will present several dozen cases of his fans doing exactly that.
  #28  
Old 04-18-2018, 05:46 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The jury is directed to acquit. Alex Jones' show is just entertainment, parody. The First Amendment may not allow you to yell 'Fire!' in a theater, but it lets you tell obvious jokes.

Jones will continue to proclaim on-air that he's 100% serious, but he won't be under oath then. On the stand in a courtroom, he and his lawyers will be laughing about the idea that anyone could take him seriously. His fans will never know about this — Fox News will report only on his acquittal, not the reason why.

Sorry. Next case.

ETA: "Acquit" is probably the wrong word in a civil trial. Sue me!
The law isn’t a fool. Sure, there’s no guarantee that the plaintiffs will win, but no competent judge is going to fall for this level of transparent pretense.

There’s mountains of evidence that people listen to Alex Jones, believe him, and act on what they believe in ways that harm Jones’s targets.

You don’t have a First Amendment right to defame private citizens. It’s not an easy case, but it’s far from a directed verdict.

Foreseeability. Alex Jones has enough evidence of his influence in the real world that he won’t be able to hide behind a smokescreen of “but I’m just kidding.”

(And the phrase your looking for in a civil case is “judgment for the defendant.”)
  #29  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:58 PM
Mr. Bill Mr. Bill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya View Post
I hope not as well. Depending on the venue rules, they might ask for $x but if the jury is incensed enough the award could be a lot higher.

Money is nice, but it's not going to be Jones' money, it'll be coming from his personal insurance policy most likely. This won't affect him at all in any meaningful way. But I wonder if they can also seek a non-monetary award, such as, "Jones has to shut the hell up about everything forever". Or something like that.
If the award is big enough, his insurance company will likely raise his premiums or possibly even decide that continuing to insure him is a bad business decision.

If that happens, and he cannot get a reasonably (whatever that means to him) priced replacement policy, maybe he will decide to retire. It's a long shot, but we can hope!
  #30  
Old 04-18-2018, 11:27 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 33,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
I have my doubts no matter how tight the case they have is.

1. There will be at least one person who claims to be unbiased but is a big fan of Alex Jones or his ilk who will end up on the jury and vote for him no matter the evidence.
Good thing the requirements for civil trials is not a unanimous verdict.
  #31  
Old 04-18-2018, 11:56 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 42,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Good thing the requirements for civil trials is not a unanimous verdict.
In Connecticut it must be unanimous. As it is in most states these days.


See here (pdf) Section 2.9-3.

I thought the same as you before I looked it up.
  #32  
Old 04-19-2018, 02:16 AM
jtur88 jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 14,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bredin View Post
A reasonable person believes that the kids killed in a school, and their parents, were actually crisis actors and nobody died at Sandy Hook? Despite a parade of local police, paramedics, hospital personnel, media, neighbors, etc. who actually saw the aftermath of the shootings including dead and wounded children? There aren't enough for that in the entire universe!

[Incredulous reaction off]Yes, I presume that would be his defense. I think we can be fairly certain it isn't going to work, though.
I didn't say he was right. I said I see no evidence that what he did was done with a malicious or reckless intent that would support to a judgment against him. It is frightening to consider living in a society where you can be punished for just being intellectually mistaken or misled. And you are obliged to shut up just in case your view doesn't prevail as the official one.

Last edited by jtur88; 04-19-2018 at 02:18 AM.
  #33  
Old 04-19-2018, 03:37 AM
BeeGee BeeGee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,037
In his child custody case last year, his attorneys basically said " He's just putting on an act for a show. " I hope that this is a well timed civil case that will not be settled out of court. I hope they're going to use this opportunity to expose him for the big fat liar that he is.
  #34  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:58 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I didn't say he was right. I said I see no evidence that what he did was done with a malicious or reckless intent that would support to a judgment against him.
He's making baseless accusations against innocent people and causing them tremendous harm. There's more than sufficient evidence just from his own broadcasts to support a defamation claim.


Quote:
It is frightening to consider living in a society where you can be punished for just being intellectually mistaken or misled. And you are obliged to shut up just in case your view doesn't prevail as the official one.
This is not what is happening in the case of Alex Jones. He is repeatedly and elaborately lying about people without any reasonable basis and causing them serious harm. There's absolutely no reason that should be protected in our society.
  #35  
Old 04-19-2018, 08:12 AM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The jury is directed to acquit. Alex Jones' show is just entertainment, parody. The First Amendment may not allow you to yell 'Fire!' in a theater, but it lets you tell obvious jokes.

Jones will continue to proclaim on-air that he's 100% serious, but he won't be under oath then. On the stand in a courtroom, he and his lawyers will be laughing about the idea that anyone could take him seriously. His fans will never know about this — Fox News will report only on his acquittal, not the reason why.

Sorry. Next case.

ETA: "Acquit" is probably the wrong word in a civil trial. Sue me!
In US law, satire and humor are indeed not legally actionable.

Here's a very concise description:

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/satire-v-defamation/

The issue, though, will be: is what Alex Jones did indeed "satire" or "humor"?

You can't merely claim something as humorous or satirical to one audience (that is, lawyers and judges) and turn around and treat it as true to another (your fans).

This is similar to the assertion that he's "just asking questions" (a defense that is, of course, somewhat incompatible with the defense that his statements are humor or satire): the trier of fact has to look to see what the true intent of the statements were.

If the trier of fact concludes they were intended to be taken as truthful statements indicating these parents were liars and frauds, or that the maker was recklessly indifferent to whether they were so taken or not, he's likely to be found liable.

On the other hand, if the trier of fact concludes that they were obvious parody or satire, akin to The Onion, then he will be found not liable.
  #36  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:42 AM
Nawth Chucka Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Whites elevated; UT
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGee View Post
In his child custody case last year, his attorneys basically said " He's just putting on an act for a show. " I hope that this is a well timed civil case that will not be settled out of court. I hope they're going to use this opportunity to expose him for the big fat liar that he is.
It would be a huge relief if he'd say what a big fat liar he is and has been. Perhaps if he has to start, finish and interrupt his program every 5 minutes to remind his viewers he is probably lying.
  #37  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:46 AM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 25,558
Now I've never listened to his show, but as I said above, the "About" page from his website seems to present the show as news.
  #38  
Old 04-19-2018, 01:11 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I didn't say he was right. I said I see no evidence that what he did was done with a malicious or reckless intent that would support to a judgment against him. It is frightening to consider living in a society where you can be punished for just being intellectually mistaken or misled. And you are obliged to shut up just in case your view doesn't prevail as the official one.
Intellectually mistaken or misled? That would require something resembling facts to support his assertion, and you're more than welcome to provide those.

Alex Jones is a weasel who's goal is to lie and mislead gullible people into listening to his show and buying his "products". Those lies have led some of those to harass and make threats against family members of massacre victims, and he CONTINUED TO PUSH THAT NARRATIVE. His whole "I'm joking" bullshit wasn't believed in his child custody case, and it sure as hell shouldn't be offered as a defense of a shitbag here.
  #39  
Old 04-19-2018, 01:29 PM
Horatius Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
I think Alex Jones is an idiot, but I wonder how far this suit will get. IANAL, but doesn't a defamation lawsuit have to show actual damage. One man yelling "crisis actors" compared to the entire rest of the American media telling the truth doesn't seem to me to cause any harm to reputation. And doesn't entertainment media enjoy a privileged position effectively shielding him from claims of defamation.

I hope the families prevail, but I just dont see it.

mc


But it isn't just one guy doing the yelling. There have been documented cases of other people harassing the Sandy Hook parents in real life. At least one person has already gone to jail for this, so I think it's pretty safe to say they've met the burden of proving actual damage.



Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bredin View Post
A reasonable person believes that the kids killed in a school, and their parents, were actually crisis actors and nobody died at Sandy Hook? Despite a parade of local police, paramedics, hospital personnel, media, neighbors, etc. who actually saw the aftermath of the shootings including dead and wounded children? There aren't enough for that in the entire universe!

And on top of all that is the timing. Jones and his ilk are notorious for jumping on the "False Flag Crisis Actors!!!!" bandwagon within hours, sometimes just minutes, of these sorts of attacks taking place. There's no way he can claim to have made a reasoned review of the relevant evidence, and reached a (possibly wrong, but defensible) conclusion so rapidly. He's jumping to ridiculous conclusions almost immediately, which would seem to me to be a textbook example of reckless disregard for the truth.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
Heh, it's an old technique, "just asking questions". Sometimes abbreviated as "JAQing off".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Will it work? My guess is that it will not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
This is similar to the assertion that he's "just asking questions" (a defense that is, of course, somewhat incompatible with the defense that his statements are humor or satire): the trier of fact has to look to see what the true intent of the statements were.

If the trier of fact concludes they were intended to be taken as truthful statements indicating these parents were liars and frauds, or that the maker was recklessly indifferent to whether they were so taken or not, he's likely to be found liable.

On the other hand, if the trier of fact concludes that they were obvious parody or satire, akin to The Onion, then he will be found not liable.


Exactly. JAQing off works in forums like this because we ultimately can't hold the JAQer to account for their BS. But the courts can! The judge literally has the legal power to call them out on their crap and make it stick, equivocation notwithstanding.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?

Last edited by Horatius; 04-19-2018 at 01:30 PM.
  #40  
Old 04-19-2018, 01:35 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 23,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeGee View Post
In his child custody case last year, his attorneys basically said " He's just putting on an act for a show. " I hope that this is a well timed civil case that will not be settled out of court. I hope they're going to use this opportunity to expose him for the big fat liar that he is.
But Jones was on the stand under oath and said it wasn’t an act.
  #41  
Old 04-19-2018, 02:53 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Exactly. JAQing off works in forums like this because we ultimately can't hold the JAQer to account for their BS. But the courts can! The judge literally has the legal power to call them out on their crap and make it stick, equivocation notwithstanding.
It's my belief that this would be the best thing we could get out of this trial. If there's a court on record that JAQing off isn't a get-out-of-jail free card it could place a dampening effect on those who would lie about political issues and not care about the damage they do to the people about whom they lie.
  #42  
Old 04-19-2018, 04:05 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,393
Fucker's weaseling now:
Quote:
In a YouTube video, Jones said he now believes the shooting really happened, and that the families are being used by the Democratic Party and the news media. Jones invited the parents onto his program for a discussion about guns.
Since the lawsuits are about stuff that's already been done, this won't stop or ameliorate them. He's done the shit, he has to pay for it.

This will, however, not play well among the people who followed and supported Infowars over the years because they though Alex Jones was The Last Honest Man, the one who couldn't be corrupted by the SJWs and Globalists and Cultural Marxists. If he does a big about-face now, in response to obvious pressure, he loses his cachet.

This might hurt his case, too: If he says he's changed his beliefs in response to evidence, well, he can't very well say he was an actor playing a role, now, can he? He was someone spreading insane lies because he couldn't be bothered to check them at any point in time prior to this lawsuit, and that kind of utter recklessness is an element of defamation.
  #43  
Old 04-19-2018, 04:05 PM
Nawth Chucka Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Whites elevated; UT
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
But Jones was on the stand under oath and said it wasn’t an act.
He testified it's a mix - sincere commentary, satire and humor.

Last edited by Nawth Chucka; 04-19-2018 at 04:05 PM.
  #44  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:29 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 25,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Fucker's weaseling now:Since the lawsuits are about stuff that's already been done, this won't stop or ameliorate them. He's done the shit, he has to pay for it.

This will, however, not play well among the people who followed and supported Infowars over the years because they though Alex Jones was The Last Honest Man, the one who couldn't be corrupted by the SJWs and Globalists and Cultural Marxists. If he does a big about-face now, in response to obvious pressure, he loses his cachet.

This might hurt his case, too: If he says he's changed his beliefs in response to evidence, well, he can't very well say he was an actor playing a role, now, can he? He was someone spreading insane lies because he couldn't be bothered to check them at any point in time prior to this lawsuit, and that kind of utter recklessness is an element of defamation.
I just skimmed the front page of his Infowars website and his Twitter feed, and found no mention of this change of opinion there. I have no idea if he's expressed on his radio or television show that he's changed his mind. My point is that his backtracking should get as much prominence as the original false claims.
  #45  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:09 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I didn't say he was right. I said I see no evidence that what he did was done with a malicious or reckless intent that would support to a judgment against him. It is frightening to consider living in a society where you can be punished for just being intellectually mistaken or misled. And you are obliged to shut up just in case your view doesn't prevail as the official one.
So are you a lawyer or not?
  #46  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:18 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 34,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka View Post
He testified it's a mix - sincere commentary, satire and humor.
[Meatloaf] One out of three ain't bad. [/Meatloaf]
  #47  
Old 04-19-2018, 07:16 PM
Smapti Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 14,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
But Jones was on the stand under oath and said it wasn’t an act.
He also said under oath that eating chili makes him forget his children's ages, though.
  #48  
Old 04-19-2018, 07:37 PM
Nawth Chucka Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Whites elevated; UT
Posts: 5,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
He also said under oath that eating chili makes him forget his children's ages, though.
Just how much chili is he eating?!
  #49  
Old 04-19-2018, 07:48 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 76,406
So, his defense is that it's not malicious, because he has reason to believe every word, and it's clearly joking, because obviously nobody could believe such nonsense.
  #50  
Old 04-19-2018, 10:32 PM
Horatius Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Fucker's weaseling now:

Quote:
In a YouTube video, Jones said he now believes the shooting really happened, and that the families are being used by the Democratic Party and the news media. Jones invited the parents onto his program for a discussion about guns.
Since the lawsuits are about stuff that's already been done, this won't stop or ameliorate them. He's done the shit, he has to pay for it.


I'd argue that, even with this weaseling, he's defaming them. "The families are being used by the Democratic Party", because of course there's no way the families could honestly think that better guns laws might actually be a desirable result.

And I love the bit about inviting them on to his show. "Okay, sure, I spent years making you out to be evil liars working to destroy 'Murrica, but please, come on my show where I can exploit you some more as content for my advertising schemes!"

And his show isn't even a live TV broadcast, where you could at least see how many different ways you could call him a fuckhead live on air before they cut you off.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017