Alex Jones found liable over Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy

#78
#78
NorthDallas40 said:
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.
Click to expand...

They're not exaggerated either, but I know what you're trying to say now. You mean they aren't good parallels.

Nice straw man. Clearly my position isn't to say douchebaggery's not protected speech.

I'm not actually sure this should/shouldn't be protected and I have the same feeling about some of my "conflated/exaggerated" examples. I mean, this is a verbal harrassment case which is exactly what one of my examples was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#79
#79
n_huffhines said:
They're not exaggerated either, but I know what you're trying to say now. You mean they aren't good parallels.

Nice straw man. Clearly my position isn't to say douchebaggery's not protected speech.

I'm not sure this should/shouldn't be protected and I have the same feeling about some of my "conflated/exaggerated" examples. I mean, this is a verbal harrassment case which is exactly what one of my examples was.
Click to expand...
Lulz. Strawman. Sure 😂
 
#80
#80
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They’re all exaggerated and don’t apply as compared here. Thanks for your valuable input on this matter.
 
#81
#81
NorthDallas40 said:
They’re all exaggerated and don’t apply as compared here. Thanks for your valuable input on this matter.
Click to expand...
I mean, the remaining three are just generic categories of unprotected speech. Hard for a literate person to call that “exaggerated.” There’s a better argument that none of them are exaggerated.

Seems like you incorrectly assumed what he was saying because you don’t know what protected speech is.
 
#82
#82
RockyTop85 said:
I mean, the remaining three are just generic categories of unprotected speech. Hard for a literate person to call that “exaggerated.”

Seems like you incorrectly assumed what he was saying because you don’t know what protected speech is.
Click to expand...
Oh another conclusion I’m shocked that you would arrive at. He did what you continually do. Use exaggerated examples to sell your ********.
 
#83
#83
I'll lay out my feelings clearly because it gets confusing when you don't just pick a side and bear down.

Should Alex Jones be punished for harming these people? Yes.

Should the government punish him? IDK. I'm worried about the implications.

Will God in the afterlife judge AJ for the harm he caused these people or will He say, "it's protected speech"?
 
#84
#84
n_huffhines said:
I'll lay out my feelings clearly because it gets confusing when you don't just pick a side and bear down.

Should Alex Jones be punished for harming these people? Yes.

Should the government punish him? IDK. I'm worried about the implications.

Will God in the afterlife judge AJ for the harm he caused these people or will He say, "it's protected speech"?
Click to expand...
Jones is a douche bag and deserves ridicule and shunning. As I’ve already said being a douche bag doesn’t automatically qualify for government sanction and punishment. That’s it.

Jones is one example for the right extreme. Joy Reid is another example from the left extreme. People need to just ignore them. Businesses can choose to not engage them. But the government needs to stay the hell out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#85
#85
NorthDallas40 said:
Oh another conclusion I’m shocked that you would arrive at. He did what you continually do. Use exaggerated examples to sell your ********.
Click to expand...

A rational person would have to believe both that Huff was lying when he said that he doesn’t know whether the speech was/should be legally protected, AND that he mistakenly failed to give examples that were unprotected speech or that flag burning isn’t protected speech (lol).
 
#86
#86
RockyTop85 said:
A rational person would have to believe both that Huff was lying when he said that he doesn’t know whether the speech was/should be legally protected, AND that he mistakenly failed to give examples that were unprotected speech or that flag burning isn’t protected speech (lol).
Click to expand...
Ok…
 
#88
#88
RockyTop85 said:
Or the rational person could believe that you take sides based on faulty assumptions, throw around ridiculous accusations, and then stubbornly refuse to admit you’re wrong, even when it’s obvious. 😂
Click to expand...
We aren’t talking about you right now. We can change if you’d like though I guess 🤡
 
#89
#89
n_huffhines said:
I'll lay out my feelings clearly because it gets confusing when you don't just pick a side and bear down.

Should Alex Jones be punished for harming these people? Yes.

Should the government punish him? IDK. I'm worried about the implications.

Will God in the afterlife judge AJ for the harm he caused these people or will He say, "it's protected speech"?
Click to expand...

When this gets to a jury and they rule he damaged these people he should pay.

No the government has no business getting involved.

I’ve never listened to him but he sounds like a POS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, n_huffhines, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#90
#90
NorthDallas40 said:
We aren’t talking about you right now. We can change if you’d like though I guess 🤡
Click to expand...
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

V

Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State's interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction, because Johnson's conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. Nor does the State's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.
Click to expand...

Tell me again how these were all exaggerated examples of unprotected speech?
 
#92
#92
Is this protected speech?

NINTCHDBPICT000618394886.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrMet
#93
#93
NorthDallas40 said:
LMAO. Going to the parsing game again to keep your undefeated (in your own mind) internet debate string alive huh? 🤡

Here I’ll add my own emphasis. Now parse that.
Click to expand...

So are you saying you were wrong to say that they were all exaggerated? Because you did:
NorthDallas40 said:
They’re all exaggerated and don’t apply as compared here. Thanks for your valuable input on this matter.
Click to expand...

If not, please continue explaining how they were all exaggerated examples of unprotected speech:

Virginia v. Black, 538 US 343 - Supreme Court 2003 - Google Scholar

And the First Amendment also permits a State to ban a "true threat." Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705, 708 (1969) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord…

"True threats" encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. See Wattsv. United States, supra, at 708 ("political hyberbole" is not a true threat);
Click to expand...
 
#94
#94
#96
#96
NorthDallas40 said:
I don’t think it’s a direct threat against Trump. I think it’s classless as hell. I’d say it’s similar to the Jones situation. Just more douche baggery.
Click to expand...
If someone posted the same image only with Biden as the severed head or kamala hanging from a rope, how long do you think it would take for:

1. Twitter to ban them?
2. The FBI/SS to start investigating?
3. The Media to vilify you into submission?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrMet
#97
#97
hog88 said:
When this gets to a jury and they rule he damaged these people he should pay.

No the government has no business getting involved.

I’ve never listened to him but he sounds like a POS.
Click to expand...

The government is already involved. The jury taking action is the government at work
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#98
#98
InVOLuntary said:
If someone posted the same image only with Biden as the severed head or kamala hanging from a rope, how long do you think it would take for:

1. Twitter to ban them?
2. The FBI/SS to start investigating?
3. The Media to vilify you into submission?
Click to expand...
All of that would happen yes. That’s just a reflection of the bias in the system not that each case on its own merit is not a credible threat that’s all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top