Alex Jones found liable over Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy

[BowlBrother85]

Do we get our $40M back for the Russian Trump Hoax?

I'll tell you what, if you can prove that the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with Natalia Veselnitskaya and 8 other Russian operatives (including a member of the GRU) didn't actually happen, or if you can even just prove that the purpose behind that meeting wasn't to discuss dirt on Hillary Clinton ....

"If it's what you say it is... I LOVE it!" - Donald Trump Jr.'s message sent to Rob Goldstone, who arranged that meeting.

.... then I will send you a personal check, payable to you, for just that amount. Otherwise, the Mueller investigation was justified. Deal?

 

[Orangeburst]

I'll tell you what, if you can prove that the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with Natalia Veselnitskaya and 8 other Russian operatives (including a member of the GRU) didn't actually happen, or if you can even just prove that the purpose behind that meeting wasn't to discuss dirt on Hillary Clinton ....

"If it's what you say it is... I LOVE it!" - Donald Trump Jr.'s message sent to Rob Goldstone, who arranged that meeting.

.... then I will send you a personal check, payable to you, for just that amount. Otherwise, the Mueller investigation was justified. Deal?

Meeting with Russians does not matter. Not a freaking crime.
Getting dirt on a political opponent happens every day. Our own bureaucracy leaked dirt on Trump all the time.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Meeting with Russians does not matter. Not a freaking crime.
Getting dirt on a political opponent happens every day. Our own bureaucracy leaked dirt on Trump all the time.

... but if the purpose of meeting with Russian agents is to receive dirt on a political opponent, then you could have a federal crime.

In the words of the Federal Elections Commission Chair, Ellen Weintraub, "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." Weintraub gave that as an answer to the question of whether or not the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting had violated FEC law.

Obviously, she was interpreting "anything of value" to include opposition research. However, in the interest of fairness, I will acknowledge that is a contentious point of debate. Not everyone agrees with her.

Regardless, that meeting more than justified the Mueller probe.

 

[Orangeburst]

... but if the purpose of meeting with Russian agents is to receive dirt on a political opponent, then you could have a federal crime.

In the words of the Federal Elections Commission Chair, Ellen Weintraub, "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." Weintraub gave that as an answer to the question of whether or not the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting had violated FEC law.

Obviously, she was interpreting "anything of value" to include opposition research. However, in the interest of fairness, I will acknowledge that is a contentious point of debate. Not everyone agrees with her.

Regardless, that meeting more than justified the Mueller probe.

You dont think the Dems never do that? The dang Pee Tape was foreign conspired.
Even so it would of been a "petty election crime", not some overblown conspiracy that was yelled from the mountaintops.
Like I said $40M down the drain in regards to Trump.

 

[Septic]

Do we get our $40M back for the Russian Trump Hoax?

Again, the usuals desperately wanting to chime in, but instead of offering anything of substance they hijack the thread with deflection and redirection.

 

[RockyTop85]

Alex Jones is found liable over Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy

Free speech does not mean speech free from consequences.

Protected speech is absolutely free of state-imposed consequences.

“Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Austin, home of Infowars, entered default judgments against Jones, Infowars and other defendants for what she called their "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard" of court orders to turn over documents to the parents' lawyers.”

This isn’t a finding that his words weren’t protected speech, it’s a default based on his failure to participate in the lawsuit in good faith.

 

[Septic]

Um this thread is about the Sandy Hook shooting. And again, why should he be held liable for an opinion? You are basically supporting the suppression of freedom of speech.

Someone needs to retake 5th grade Civics to learn what the 1A is and who it protects the citizens from.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You dont think the Dems never do that? The dang Pee Tape was foreign conspired.
Even so it would of been a "petty election crime", not some overblown conspiracy that was yelled from the mountaintops.
Like I said $40M down the drain in regards to Trump.

I'm sure they do, but right now, we are talking about the Trump campaign as it pertains to the Mueller probe. The June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower justified that probe, especially after both Trump and Trump Jr. had been caught lying about who was in attendance at the meeting and what the true purpose behind it was. The Trumps initially claimed that it was to discuss the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, and Russia lifting the American ban on adoptions of Russian children. However, text message exchanges between Donald Trump Jr. and Rob Goldstone revealed that narrative to be a lie. Why did they lie if they didn't think there was anything wrong with it?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Hope they hire a super aggressive collections firm and hound him for every nickel they can.

I thought you were a lawyer. Can you list what the judge’s ruling was with specific regard to damages?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Protected speech is absolutely free of state-imposed consequences.

“Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Austin, home of Infowars, entered default judgments against Jones, Infowars and other defendants for what she called their "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard" of court orders to turn over documents to the parents' lawyers.”

This isn’t a finding that his words weren’t protected speech, it’s a default based on his failure to participate in the lawsuit in good faith.

Right, but it's also not a finding that what he said fell under the umbrella of protected speech either. Jones has admitted to telling lies about the parents of Sandy Hook victims. His lawyers defense has basically been the same defense that Sidney Powell has used:

"Nobody would believe what this guy says. The purpose of his show is to entertain. It's just an act, not intended to be taken seriously."

 

[Orangeburst]

I'm sure they do, but right now, we are talking about the Trump campaign as it pertains to the Mueller probe. The June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower justified that probe, especially after both Trump and Trump Jr. had been caught lying about who was in attendance at the meeting and what the true purpose behind it was. The Trumps initially claimed that it was to discuss the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, and Russia lifting the American ban on adoptions of Russian children, However, text message exchanges between Donald Trump Jr. and Rob Goldstone revealed that narrative to be a lie. Why did they lie if they didn't think there was anything wrong with it?

To hide a petty election crime? I dont know.
It has certainly been blown way out or proportion, for political aims of course.
Biden has done more to negatively affect the NATO alliance. Remember when you claimed he was disrupting NATO to the benefit of Russia, all because he asked that they pay the 2% defense commitment already made? And the gas pipeline. Stuff like that. Facts for your coffee this morning.

IOW, all overblown nonsense. Rather disgraceful actually.

 

[Hunerwadel]

It is unrelated to this particular report, but with regards to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Alex Jones has done much more than that. Without a shred of evidence to support his allegations, Jones has accused parents of murdered Sandy Hook Elementary School children of being actors, who had been paid by an anti-gun lobby to appear on television and lie about having a child killed in the massacre.

Not to mention his messages resulted in the victims families receiving tens of thousands of mail, email, text threats and drive by harassments.

 

[RockyTop85]

Right, but it's also not a finding that what he said fell under the umbrella of protected speech either. Jones has admitted to telling lies about the parents of Sandy Hook victims. His lawyers defense has basically been the same defense that Sidney Powell has used:

"Nobody would believe what this guy says. The purpose of his show is to entertain. It's just an act, not intended to be taken seriously."

Right, but it's also not a finding that what he said fell under the umbrella of protected speech either. Jones has admitted to telling lies about the parents of Sandy Hook victims. His lawyers defense has basically been the same defense that Sidney Powell has used:

"Nobody would believe what this guy says. The purpose of his show is to entertain. It's just an act, not intended to be taken seriously."

Right, the operative question is whether the speech is protected. That hasn’t been answered here.

 

[n_huffhines]

Um this thread is about the Sandy Hook shooting. And again, why should he be held liable for an opinion? You are basically supporting the suppression of freedom of speech.

Can you scream fire in a crowded building?

Can you be sued for defamation?

Can you be sued for verbal harassment?

Can you threaten to kill the Presdient?

Can you instigate a riot?

Can you burn a flag?

Just wondering where you conveniently believe freedom of speech ends.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Can you scream fire in a crowded building?

Can you be sued for slander/libel?

Can you be sued for defamation?

Can you be sued for verbal harassment?

Can you threaten to kill the Presdient?

Can you instigate a riot?

Can you burn a flag?

Just wondering where you conveniently believe freedom of speech ends.

Nothing convenient about anything. A person should be able to say whatever they want.

 

[BreatheUT]

I’ll be honest - I don’t follow Alex Jones, am not up to speed on this, and I’m not gonna read up on the nonsense either.

Did he get in trouble for saying dumb sh!t about Sandy Hook?
Or did he get in trouble for something that led to a fight in a bar/barn?

This. Yawn. Next.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

This. Yawn. Next.

Alex Jones is an idiot

 

[n_huffhines]

Nothing convenient about anything. A person should be able to say whatever they want.

I didn't ask "should" I asked "can"

Clearly here you are saying the government decides when it's a "can't".

If the state and government cannot dictate what constitutes free speech then who can

Also, fire in a crowded building? WTF. You shouldn't be free to cause harm through deception. Fraud OK? Protected by speech? Can you order a hit on somebody? After all, it's just speech.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Can you scream fire in a crowded building?

Can you be sued for defamation?

Can you be sued for verbal harassment?

Can you threaten to kill the Presdient?

Can you instigate a riot?

Can you burn a flag?

Just wondering where you conveniently believe freedom of speech ends.

Can you stop using conflated examples of non protected speech as a basis to show that this not ruled on case isn’t an example of protected speech?

 

[n_huffhines]

Can you stop using conflated examples of non protected speech as a basis to show that this not ruled on case isn’t an example of protected speech?

English. That's not what conflate means.

So you're on my side that this isn't protected speech? I truly do not know.

 

[hog88]

Thanks for telling me why you're biased about this.

You don't believe that a conspiracy theorist would behave badly in a complicated social situation relating to a conspiracy theory the conspiracy theorist believes?....

Yes I openly admit I’m biased. Bad **** happens to good people every day, don’t take your tragedy and use it to push an agenda to take away rights.

And no I don’t believe some random guy in a bar recognized the parent and started ish out of the blue.

 

[hog88]

This is tribalism. You've just admitted that your capacity for empathy only extends to those who are in accord with your political views, even when the deaths of innocent children are involved. Feeling compassion for a parent, following the murder of their child shouldn't come with strings attached, unless you are an emotionally immature and petty little person, who is tribal in nature.

You are the emotionally immature one here. I feel for anyone suffering a tragedy like SH. I lose empathy and compassion for them when they use that tragedy to push political agendas.

 

[NorthDallas40]

English. That's not what conflate means.

So you're on my side that this isn't protected speech? I truly do not know.

It was English. And yes you went to exaggerated examples of restricted speech to say what Jones did was not protected speech. I don’t combine your examples with Jones’s case that’s it.

No lm not on your side. Jones is a douche bag and needlessly agitated an already bad situation. But that’s it. And luckily for at least three quarters of our citizens with social media accounts being a douche bag isn’t by definition restricted speech.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You are the emotionally immature one here. I feel for anyone suffering a tragedy like SH. I lose empathy and compassion for them when they use that tragedy to push political agendas.

Then it's just as I said. You reserve your empathy and compassion for people who share in your political ideology. The tragedy itself takes a backseat.

 

[RockyTop85]

It was English. And yes you went to exaggerated examples of restricted speech to say what Jones did was not protected speech. I don’t combine your examples with Jones’s case that’s it.

No lm not on your side. Jones is a douche bag and needlessly agitated an already bad situation. But that’s it. And luckily for at least three quarters of our citizens with social media accounts being a douche bag isn’t by definition restricted speech.

Eh? Not even all of those are unprotected, much less exaggerated. One is protected, one could be protected depending on the circumstances, and “fire in a crowded theatre” is a meme, but was never actually held to fall outside the first amendment.