Alex Jones, a coward

[hog88]

The performance artist piece. His lawyer is saying he's knowing a lying sack of **** to his audience for ratings

That’s exactly what he is saying. He’s saying he qualifies to be a nightly host on any of the major newstainment networks.

 

[loggervol]

The performance artist piece. His lawyer is saying he's knowing a lying sack of **** to his audience for ratings

And, he has also been right on quite a few things Even though he may be a piece of ****.

 

[RockyTop85]

Because you can’t.

Then I guess I just got lucky on being right… again.

 

[volfanhill]

And, he has also been right on quite a few things Even though he may be a piece of ****.

This lawsuit aside he's an idiot. Anyone listening to him is an idiot. Sure he's been right about things. He makes awfully unfounded bs accusations and claims that only the dumbest believe. Whoopi Goldberg has been right about things. Joe Biden has been right about things. I am still learning about the accusation against him so I will pause until I know more if I think he is guilty of this. But at the end of the day only a absolute moron would ever give him the time of day. Just like anyone who would give Whoopi

 

[hog88]

Then I guess I just got lucky on being right… again.

Show us how you are right. How did AJ defame someone and Huff isn’t a fraud.

 

[loggervol]

This lawsuit aside he's an idiot. Anyone listening to him is an idiot. Sure he's been right about things. He makes awfully unfounded bs accusations and claims that only the dumbest believe. Whoopi Goldberg has been right about things. Joe Biden has been right about things. I am still learning about the accusation against him so I will pause until I know more if I think he is guilty of this. But at the end of the day only a absolute moron would ever give him the time of day. Just like anyone who would give Whoopi

So you’re saying he shouldn’t be taken seriously? Exactly

 

[volfanhill]

So you’re saying he shouldn’t be taken seriously? Exactly

That wouldn't excuse him from defamation

 

[RockyTop85]

Show us how you are right. How did AJ defame someone and Huff isn’t a fraud.

Already told you: I’m good to let it ride.

Unlike you, I familiarize myself with the facts before commenting. I’m confident the jury is about to rip him a new *******, which is totally unsurprising to anybody who followed the story at all, and then it’s gonna be my word and an independent jury who heard all the facts and was instructed on the law vs the master baiter who said all this:

Punished for what?

Huff doesn’t believe in limited government and I have yet seen how AJ defamed anyone.

I’m not claiming to know much about this case so did he point to any specific individual and claim they were a crisis actor? Or did he say there were crisis actors there?

 

[RockyTop85]

That wouldn't excuse him from defamation

I think it could, if a reasonable listener would understand that it was not a statement of fact.

There are some strong counter arguments to that in this case where the situation actually festered for quite a while before he got sued.

The fact that losing that defense wasn’t a sufficient incentive to comply with court orders might be evidence of how strong of a defense it was.

 

[hog88]

Already told you: I’m good to let it ride.

Unlike you, I familiarize myself with the facts before commenting. I’m confident the jury is about to rip him a new *******, which is totally unsurprising to anybody who followed the story at all, and then it’s gonna be my word and an independent jury who heard all the facts and was instructed on the law vs the master baiter who said all this:

LOL

A jury could very well find him liable but you have yet to make any argument as to why they should.

 

[loggervol]

That wouldn't excuse him from defamation

Again, how many people have been sued over conspiracy theories. And, how are they going to prove that 150 million believed what he said. Though he may be a piece of ****.

 

[volfanhill]

I think it could, if a reasonable listener would understand that it was not a statement of fact.

There are some strong counter arguments to that in this case where the situation actually festered for quite a while before he got sued.

The fact that losing that defense wasn’t a sufficient incentive to comply with court orders might be evidence of how strong of a defense it was.

How would you show reasonability?

 

[RockyTop85]

LOL

A jury could very well find him liable but you have yet to make any argument as to why they should.

They can’t find him liable, he waived that determination and has already been found liable. They’re having the trial to determine how much he owes.

Things you need to know to be taken seriously when asserting that the system is “a joke,” is engaged in overreach, and/or isn’t working properly.

 

[loggervol]

Did AJ ever say he had proof of what he was saying? I did a search and nothing came up. If he said he had proof, he may be in a pickle. But, if he didn’t, how are they going to get past, what he said was his opinion?

 

[volfanhill]

Did AJ ever say he had proof of what he was saying? I did a search and nothing came up. If he said he had proof, he may be in a pickle. But, if he didn’t, how are they going to get past, what he said was his opinion?

That's not required for defamation. Also he made it clear he didn't want an actual trial.

If I go to the press and say you are a pedophile i don't get a free pass. Even if I believe it to be true.

 

[RockyTop85]

How would you show reasonability?

It’s just a legal standard that assumes the hypothetical average person. The judge is the one who would make that determination and it tends to lean pretty heavily in favor of the defendant for first amendment reasons.

That was the Tucker Carlson defense that he gets lampooned for all the time and then it’s essentially what caused Sandmann to lose his remaining cases last week.

But it’s a summary judgment thing, which happens after discovery and I don’t think Jones ever made it that far.

 

[volfanhill]

It’s just a legal standard that assumes the hypothetical average person. The judge is the one who would make that determination and it tends to lean pretty heavily in favor of the defendant for first amendment reasons.

That was the Tucker Carlson defense that he gets lampooned for all the time and then it’s essentially what caused Sandmann to lose his remaining cases last week.

But it’s a summary judgment thing, which happens after discovery and I don’t think Jones ever made it that far.

Thank you

 

[RockyTop85]

Thank you

I don’t know that it’s a great defense, here.

He spent 5 years making factual assertions that it was fake and that the parents were actors who were essentially lying about the death of their children. And it wasn’t just like “this is my opinion, take it or leave it.” There were statements presented as fact, like that, based on journalist’s investigations, another parent could not possibly have held his dead child and witnessed the wound in his head. He claimed that people had gone to the town and found no paperwork and that there were no bodies. These were things that can be confirmed or disproven and he asserted them as fact, not as an opinion.

His specific comments about De La Rosa were similar. They had to do with an interview that she had with Anderson Cooper where Jones was claiming that it was fake and filmed in a studio rather than on location. He pointed out some visual artifacts in the footage and claimed it was caused by a green screen and specifically said it was part of the cover up. He reverenced her interview many times as evidence of his claim. So it not only somewhat undermines this defense, but the plaintiff’s theory is that his comments rope her in as part of the other statements about there being a hoax.

Also, people did believe it. These plaintiffs received threats from Jones’s listeners who believed they were part of a coverup. Other parents have described worse.

It’s not a kind speech that should be protected and claiming otherwise is intellectually incoherent, in my opinion.

 

[VOLS INC.]

He intentionally fuels hatred, division, and ignorance for profit. That's lowest form in my book.

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

At a Dem fundraiser when the topic of Trump supporters was raised.
“We don’t have time for charlatans and we don’t have time for hatred and we don’t have time for bigotry and we don’t have time for flim-flam,"


Rather than finding common cause, or admitting any fault of his own, he would attack those that disagreed with him as “Not American” and follow that up with “This is not who we are”.
46 Times President Obama told Americans 'That's Not Who We Are' | SUPERcuts! #259 - YouTube


And this is just despicable.


All of the above is just a snapshot of one of the most divisive human beings of our generation. And yet…


Obama’s new house. Profit indeed.

In typical Luther fashion, you will cite your precious continuum as a means to dismiss the truth and go about your day.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

That’s an amazing list. He is more of a comedian than journalist.

That list is also full of gross mischaracterizations or misinterpretations.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

It’s a defamation case.

Defamation has been recognized at English common law for 500 years.
Defamation has been part of the American legal tradition since before the founding.
Punitive damages are usually available for malicious defamation.

Are you saying you don’t believe in defamation law and think it’s government overreach? Maybe it was Hog that called it overreach.

No one is necessarily arguing with the principle of deformation. I think most people see this as a weak azz deformation case.

 

[n_huffhines]

^^See huff, this guy isn’t a fraud. He actually supports and believes people should be punished for unpopular thoughts that hurt feelings.

Show me where I said the state should punish him to the point that he has a bad life. You're lying on me, and calling me the fraud. Time to finally grow up, old man. Not everything is about the state. JFC

IDK what the state should do but I do know this guy doesn't deserve to live comfortably. Try to reconcile the two ideas and stop desperately trying to make it into something else.

 

[Iam4utalways]

That list is also full of gross mischaracterizations or misinterpretations.

That’s unfortunate. Until this thread I hadn’t heard of this guy. With the list that was posted he seems that he might be entertaining.

I might have to start getting my news from Comedy Central again. Volnation has dropped the ball again. The other day it was said political memes aren’t always accurate with the information they provide.

 

[RockyTop85]

No one is necessarily arguing with the principle of deformation. I think most people see this as a weak azz deformation case.

No they don’t.

The people who have argued that it wasn’t defamation have admitted that they don’t know much about what he actually said, which is a critical fact in a defamation case.

People forming opinions without knowing what they’re talking about doesn’t make the case any weaker. It doesn’t prove anything except that there are a bunch of partisan hacks on here, which was already known. I guess I’m surprised there are as many people that want/choose to beclown themselves defending Alex Jones as part of the tribe as there are, but I probably shouldn’t be.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Show us how you are right. How did AJ defame someone and Huff isn’t a fraud.

He knowingly lied about Sandy hook and the parents and said they didn’t even have kids or that they participated in hiding them pretending they were shot for money.