POETIC JUSTICE

[doctalaughs]

---

Members do not see this ad.

No one is defending that scumbag. I’m defending the freedom of speech. He’s not responsible for people threatening the family.

People have to take their own responsibilities. Why aren’t they suing the individuals making those threats?

You have people in the media making incredibly false claims. Like abortion. Why not go after those in the media for making false claims on abortion when a doctor gets killed outside the abortion clinic?

Did Alex jones personally threaten these families?

Where are the individuals who made these threats?

If your kid was murdered- and a radio host repeatedly said it was staged and you were an actor— and your whole remaining family was being harassed and threatened constantly by his listeners— would you sue?

Or are you ok with the verdict if it was just 150m and not a billion?

Or are you saying he should be free to defame you and your family?

 

[aneftp]

Oh man! These are all GREAT arguments he wasn't able to bring to trial because he ****ed around for two years refusing to comply with discovery.

...in four separate lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas, Mr. Jones lost the opportunity to mount a First Amendment defense as he and his lawyers repeatedly failed to turn over documents, including financial records, ordered by the court. As a result, he was found liable in all four cases by default. "We don’t know whether that First Amendment defense would have been successful in this case because Jones didn’t present it (other than by bloviating about free speech); he lost the case by default when he refused to participate in the legal proceedings,” Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at the William & Mary Law School, told New York University’s First Amendment Watch news site.

Here’s how Alex Jones gave up his chance to defend himself on free speech grounds. (Published 2022)

Jones has argued that his conspiracy theories amounted to opinion, not statements of fact.

www.nytimes.com

It seems like it's your position it was unfair to Jones to not be able to bring these defenses to trial. I would argue it was unfair of Jones to not comply with his discovery obligations. As much as any crime is the result of deliberate decisions, Jones repeated refusals to comply with discovery falls in that realm and deserves punishment. His punishment took the form of a default verdict against him and the jury just had to decide his punishment.

Again. You fail to see the point.

These ARE NOT CRIMES.

these are civil lawsuits. All grey areas just like our malpractice lawsuits. Some juries just hate defendants. There can be so much bias. Just like the judge hated Alex jones. The plaintiffs asked for 150 million and the judge said no. He thinks it should be more. These are rogue decisions.

 

[aneftp]

If your kid was murdered- and a radio host repeatedly said it was staged and you were an actor— and your whole remaining family was being harassed and threatened constantly by his listeners— would you sue?

Or are you ok with the verdict if it was just 150m and not a billion?

Or are you saying he should be free to defame you and your family?

Other people harassed the family and gave out their addresses. Not Alex jones.

If we go after every preacher of the Bible. Does that make the preacher liable because he has undisciplined followers?

 

[doctalaughs]

Other people harassed the family and gave out their addresses. Not Alex jones.

Gotcha - so when your wife and other kids are getting harassed and threatened repeatedly over years while mourning your other dead kid, you would not try to hold Alex Jones responsible at all.

You’d tell them it’s a free country — and it’s not his fault that a handful of his crazy million listeners believed the repeated purposeful lies.

 

[UscGhost]

No one is defending that scumbag. I’m defending the freedom of speech. He’s not responsible for people threatening the family.

People have to take their own responsibilities. Why aren’t they suing the individuals making those threats?

You have people in the media making incredibly false claims. Like abortion. Why not go after those in the media for making false claims on abortion when a doctor gets killed outside the abortion clinic?

Did Alex jones personally threaten these families?

Where are the individuals who made these threats?

He didn't present a first amendment defense because he didn't follow the process. He had expensive lawyers and he decided to make an expense mistake

So whether his speech was protected or not is irrelevant

 

[aneftp]

Gotcha - so when your wife and other kids are getting harassed and threatened repeatedly over years while mourning your other dead kid, you would not try to hold Alex Jones responsible at all.

You’d tell them it’s a free country — and it’s not his fault that a handful of his crazy million listeners believed the repeated purposeful lies.

Where are the civil lawsuits against the harassers?

I tried to google it and can’t find any civil lawsuits against any of the people who were arrested for the harassments. That’s how messed up this world is. They don’t go after the actual people who harassed the sandy hook families. Even if they have one penny. They need to go after them like jack smith, Alvin Bragg, and Fannie Willis

 

[CopaceticOne]

@aneftp - You are just being deliberately obtuse at this point. The guy didn’t follow the rules of the court and thus experienced the consequences of those actions.

Stop conflating the summary judgements against him for not following the rule of judicial proceeding with the free speech argument.

 

[aneftp]

Just remember these crazy church Phelps klan was far worst than what Alex jones did. And the Supreme Court protected them from civil lawsuits. Considering I know some of
The members personally and went to school with a couple of them. Now u want to talk about harassment. These people escaped civil lawsuits

Snyder v. Phelps - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Is Alex Jones' trial about free-speech rights?

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones arrived at a Texas courthouse for his defamation trial for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack a hoax with the words "Save the 1st" scrawled on tape covering his mouth.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

 

[rowsdower88]

Again. You fail to see the point.

These ARE NOT CRIMES.

these are civil lawsuits. All grey areas just like our malpractice lawsuits. Some juries just hate defendants. There can be so much bias. Just like the judge hated Alex jones. The plaintiffs asked for 150 million and the judge said no. He thinks it should be more. These are rogue decisions.

Defamation is a crime.

The people accusing Jones of defamation needed to demonstrate what knowledge Jones had at the time he made his statements in question.

The judges in four separate cases believed that the plaintiffs were entitled to Jones' records to determine what knowledge Jones had.

Over the course of two years, Jones repeatedly failed to produce those records and lied about their existence. During this time, Jones was fined over $100k for this repeated failure to comply.

Monetary damages didn't work on Jones. What do you think judges should do in this situation?

 

[aneftp]

Defamation is a crime.

The people accusing Jones of defamation needed to demonstrate what knowledge Jones had at the time he made his statements in question.

The judges in four separate cases believed that the plaintiffs were entitled to Jones' records to determine what knowledge Jones had.

Over the course of two years, Jones repeatedly failed to produce those records and lied about their existence. During this time, Jones was fined over $100k for this repeated failure to comply.

Monetary damages didn't work on Jones. What do you think judges should do in this situation?

If ur definition of a civil judgement is a crime. Than malpractice civil lawsuits are a crime? Right? Jones has never been charged with a criminal act relating to sandy hook. He has a dui. That’s all I can find

Judges need to follow the Supreme Court decision and thrown these bogus civil cases out before they even start.

Just because you don’t like how someone’s behavior doesn’t mean you shouldn’t follow the constitution of the USA on free speech like the Phelps church klan.

Of course the Phelps klan are a bunch of lawyers themselves and know how to use the laws of the constitution to give a big f u to those who hate them. Because guess what? It freedom of speech.

Are the families of military service men whose funerals were protested shouted all. Harassed. There was public outcry on that matter also. But they can’t sue the Phelps klan even if it’s depicable acts on their part. And they were the ones who actually protected.

Jones didn’t even do the harassment. Idiots who listen to him did the harassment.

 

[aneftp]

Defamation is a crime.

The people accusing Jones of defamation needed to demonstrate what knowledge Jones had at the time he made his statements in question.

The judges in four separate cases believed that the plaintiffs were entitled to Jones' records to determine what knowledge Jones had.

Over the course of two years, Jones repeatedly failed to produce those records and lied about their existence. During this time, Jones was fined over $100k for this repeated failure to comply.

Monetary damages didn't work on Jones. What do you think judges should do in this situation?

Defamation Law Made Simple

Learn what defamation is, the basics of slander and libel, what you need to prove in a defamation lawsuit, and how much a defamation lawsuit could be worth.

www.nolo.com

 

[rowsdower88]

If ur definition of a civil judgement is a crime. Than malpractice civil lawsuits are a crime? Right? Jones has never been charged with a criminal act relating to sandy hook. He has a dui. That’s all I can find

Judges need to follow the Supreme Court decision and thrown these bogus civil cases out before they even start.

Just because you don’t like how someone’s behavior doesn’t mean you shouldn’t follow the constitution of the USA on free speech like the Phelps church klan.

Of course the Phelps klan are a bunch of lawyers themselves and know how to use the laws of the constitution to give a big f u to those who hate them. Because guess what? It freedom of speech.

Are the families of military service men whose funerals were protested shouted all. Harassed. There was public outcry on that matter also. But they can’t sue the Phelps klan even if it’s depicable acts on their part. And they were the ones who actually protected.

Jones didn’t even do the harassment. Idiots who listen to him did the harassment.

Sorry, I was using "crime" as a colloquial term because I thought that was the level we were working on.

I'll phrase it better: do you think defamation is a civil wrong that one party can seek damages for?

Or should all defamation cases just be thrown out by judges?

Which supreme court case would you cite to get this case thrown out even before discovery?

 

[aneftp]

Sorry, I was using "crime" as a colloquial term because I thought that was the level we were working on.

I'll phrase it better: do you think defamation is a civil wrong that one party can seek damages for?

All grey areas. “Will full intent” is in the eyes of the beholder even trumps real criminal case in manhattan New York never should have been even tried as criminal. “Will full intent” to use stormy daniels

Look. If people have it out for someone like Alex jones or even oj Simpson. They will try to stick to them and thats just not right.

I can set aside any hatred from anyone and interpret the laws through unbiased eyes. Many people let their emotions get a hold of them

I mention oj Simpson. The juror convicted him of kidnapping just because they wanted to stick it to him. And that was just wrong. No other Nevada bank robber gets convicted telling a bank teller to move to a corner of kidnapping. No one. But the jurors hated oj so they interpreted the laws as narrowly as possible to stick it to him

Thus going back to Alex jones. The judges hates him and that’s not right. The judges can’t set aside their own personal emotions and rule within the constitution of the USA.

I don’t wear my emotions on my sleeve. I can and will be stone cold. And people need to grow balls these days. Defamation is in the eyes of the beholder. This is a complicated case because Alex jones didn’t harass the sandy hook people.

It’s like me going to harass trump and telling him he’s an idiot and needs to go to hell. Because I can blame Rachel Maddow for influencing my actions. And trump can turn around instead of suing me. Trump can sue nbc universal because of Rachel maddows views which I am carrying out to harass trump.

 

[rowsdower88]

All grey areas. “Will full intent” is in the eyes of the beholder even trumps real criminal case in manhattan New York never should have been even tried as criminal. “Will full intent” to use stormy daniels

Look. If people have it out for someone like Alex jones or even oj Simpson. They will try to stick to them and thats just not right.

I can set aside any hatred from anyone and interpret the laws through unbiased eyes. Many people let their emotions get a hold of them

I mention oj Simpson. The juror convicted him of kidnapping just because they wanted to stick it to him. And that was just wrong. No other Nevada bank robber gets convicted telling a bank teller to move to a corner of kidnapping. No one. But the jurors hated oj so they interpreted the laws as narrowly as possible to stick it to him

Thus going back to Alex jones. The judges hates him and that’s not right. The judges can’t set aside their own personal emotions and rule within the constitution of the USA.

I don’t wear my emotions on my sleeve. I can and will be stone cold. And people need to grow balls these days. Defamation is in the eyes of the beholder. This is a complicated case because Alex jones didn’t harass the sandy hook people.

It’s like me going to harass trump and telling him he’s an idiot and needs to go to hell. Because I can blame Rachel Maddow for influencing my actions. And trump can turn around instead of suing me. Trump can sue nbc universal because of Rachel maddows views which I am carrying out to harass trump.

If I believe someone has defamed me, should I be able to take that person to court? Yes or no.

When you say willful intent is a "gray area" and "in the eyes of the beholder" what you're telling me is that you don't think it can or should ever be proven in court. It's a fake standard to you, regardless of whatever evidence might be brought.

Which is an opinion you can have, but it makes you a crank on the level of a sovereign citizen.

Edit: I know that one of Jones' cases took place in Texas and Texas at least has an anti-slapp law in place. Anti-slapp laws protect first amendment rights and raise the barriers to frivolous defamation suits. They limit discovery and can ensure rapid dismissal of frivolous suits. I really urge you to look more into this case.

 

[aneftp]

If I believe someone has defamed me, should I be able to take that person to court? Yes or no.

When you say willful intent is a "gray area" and "in the eyes of the beholder" what you're telling me is that you don't think it can or should ever be proven in court. It's a fake standard to you, regardless of whatever evidence might be brought.

Which is an opinion you can have, but it makes you a crank on the level of a sovereign citizen.

Look. If someone has it out for u. They can make up bs stuff and if the juror doesn’t like u. They can issue judgment against you.

Case in point. Many people claim shady 100%write off on car leases or section 179 deductions with 6000 pound suv

If someone has it out for u. They can claim u didn’t use it for 100% business. And go after you for a judgment for lying on taxes (like trump).

If it’s Alvin Bragg. He will ignore 99.9% of people. But he sees trump on the list of potential tax cheats. He will go after trump just because he doesn’t like trump and jurors don’t like trump will rule against him.

It’s the same as Alex jones. People don’t like the guy.

I can’t see why do don’t see bias against him. I don’t like Alex jones. But I can separate my emotions from my hatred of jones vs the laws.

Many people are so vested emotionally they blur the lines and will rule against him.

Many rulings in civil cases are loosely based on facts. We have seen it with malpractice cases. That’s why attorneys didn’t want to to take a family friend with bilaterally vertebral artery dissection. She had a stroke but recovered. Healthy young mother of 2. She had to be on blood thinners for 3 months. But the attorneys wouldn’t take the case (clear malpractice because the chiropractor let her out of office) while she said she didn’t feel well. The hospital missed the diagnosis the first time. I posted about it before

Grey areas. But the attorney wants to see a crippled vegetative stroked out vertebral artery dissection to take the case. Because they know it sells more to the jury emotions.

 

[rowsdower88]

Look. If someone has it out for u. They can make up bs stuff and if the juror doesn’t like u. They can issue judgment against you.

Case in point. Many people claim shady 100%write off on car leases or section 179 deductions with 6000 pound suv

If someone has it out for u. They can claim u didn’t use it for 100% business. And go after you for a judgment for lying on taxes (like trump).

If it’s Alvin Bragg. He will ignore 99.9% of people. But he sees trump on the list of potential tax cheats. He will go after trump just because he doesn’t like trump and jurors don’t like trump will rule against him.

It’s the same as Alex jones. People don’t like the guy.

I can’t see why do don’t see bias against him. I don’t like Alex jones. But I can separate my emotions from my hatred of jones vs the laws.

Many people are so vested emotionally they blur the lines and will rule against him.

Many rulings in civil cases are loosely based on facts. We have seen it with malpractice cases. That’s why attorneys didn’t want to to take a family friend with bilaterally vertebral artery dissection. She had a stroke but recovered. Healthy young mother of 2. She had to be on blood thinners for 3 months. But the attorneys wouldn’t take the case (clear malpractice because the chiropractor let her out of office) while she said she didn’t feel well. The hospital missed the diagnosis the first time. I posted about it before

Grey areas. But the attorney wants to see a crippled vegetative stroked out vertebral artery dissection to take the case. Because they know it sells more to the jury emotions.

There are cases brought to trial I disagree with. There are verdicts I disagree with. There are interpretations of the law and applications of standards I disagree with.

The problem I have with your argument at this point is that you don't really believe these standards (or at least the willful intent standard) are real at all. That any interpretation of the law is up to the judge's/jury's discretion and if they happen to personally dislike you, then any bad outcome is the result of that prejudice and not the result of people honestly interpreting law as written. That it's impossible for an odious person to get a fair shake. I believe there are plenty of horrible people who have walked free.

Believe it or not, if someone goes to trial and "makes up bs stuff about you", you can argue against that bs in court! Jones wasn't an indigent defendant here, he could have had the best defense money could buy. He chose not to.

 

[aneftp]

There are cases brought to trial I disagree with. There are verdicts I disagree with. There are interpretations of the law and applications of standards I disagree with.

The problem I have with your argument at this point is that you don't really believe these standards (or at least the willful intent standard) are real at all. That any interpretation of the law is up to the judge's/jury's discretion and if they happen to personally dislike you, then any bad outcome is the result of that prejudice and not the result of people honestly interpreting law as written. That it's impossible for a personally odious person to get a fair shake. I believe there are plenty of horrible people who have walked free.

Believe it or not, if someone goes to trial and "makes up bs stuff about you", you can argue against that bs in court! Jones wasn't an indigent defendant here, he could have had the best defense money could buy. He chose not to.

Jones acts like he thinks he’s trump. Trump didn’t want to give up classified court documents either (jack smith special prosecutor I think)

Some people are knuckle headed. And jones is one of the them.

I think in his head he feels the lawsuits were frivolous and he just ignored requests for supplying court ordered documents. That’s one him and his team. I get it. But the principal of the lawsuits themselves should have been thrown out by the judges in the first place. That’s judicial bias.

Am I skeptical of the judicial system? Absolutely . I think most jurors are dumb. Most judges are like VA doctors. Meaning most of them are lazy. You may get a few good judges just like you may get some good doctors at the Va. but overall I have very little respect for the system.

 

[UscGhost]

Jones acts like he thinks he’s trump. Trump didn’t want to give up classified court documents either (jack smith special prosecutor I think)

Some people are knuckle headed. And jones is one of the them.

I think in his head he feels the lawsuits were frivolous and he just ignored requests for supplying court ordered documents. That’s one him and his team. I get it. But the principal of the lawsuits themselves should have been thrown out by the judges in the first place. That’s judicial bias.

Am I skeptical of the judicial system? Absolutely . I think most jurors are dumb. Most judges are like VA doctors. Meaning most of them are lazy. You may get a few good judges just like you may get some good doctors at the Va. but overall I have very little respect for the system.

Judges shouldn't be throwing out cases if the defense doesn't present sufficient evidence to support that.

If you get sued for malpractice and your defense team doesn't present expert testimony..you'll lose, regardless of the legitimacy of the case

 

[aneftp]

Judges shouldn't be throwing out cases if the defense doesn't present sufficient evidence to support that.

If you get sued for malpractice and your defense team doesn't present expert testimony..you'll lose, regardless of the legitimacy of the case

Judges dismiss defamation lawsuits all the time

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/us/alec-baldwin-defamation-lawsuit/index.html

“This is a significant step toward the complete dismissal of the lawsuit, which seeks to punish Mr. Baldwin for expressing his political opinion,”

New York judge who’s likely liberal dismissed a case against left leaning prorepublica

Judge Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Filed Over ProPublica Article

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

www.propublica.org

 

[UscGhost]

Judges dismiss defamation lawsuits all the time

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/us/alec-baldwin-defamation-lawsuit/index.html

“This is a significant step toward the complete dismissal of the lawsuit, which seeks to punish Mr. Baldwin for expressing his political opinion,”

New York judge who’s likely liberal dismissed a case against left leaning prorepublica

Judge Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Filed Over ProPublica Article

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

www.propublica.org

Exactly.

The defense presented their argument, with their evidence and complied with the judicial process and won the dismissal.

You failed to understand that Alex Jones didn't follow proper judicial procedures, and didn't present a defense. He just told the court to F off .

He might have won a free speech defense.

Here’s how Alex Jones gave up his chance to defend himself on free speech grounds. (Published 2022)

Jones has argued that his conspiracy theories amounted to opinion, not statements of fact.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Judges shouldn't be throwing out cases if the defense doesn't present sufficient evidence to support that.

If you get sued for malpractice and your defense team doesn't present expert testimony..you'll lose, regardless of the legitimacy of the case

Yeah but some random blowhard on a physician forum who knew a lawyer says otherwise?

 

[deleted643396]

Other people harassed the family and gave out their addresses. Not Alex jones.

If we go after every preacher of the Bible. Does that make the preacher liable because he has undisciplined followers?

The Bible and religion are the basis for countless atrocities against humanity. The problem is those things are backed by a massive, powerful INSTITUTION. Institutions are above the law and are not held to the same standards as individuals. The Catholic Church covered up the rape of countless little boys and the punishment was equivalent to a slap on the wrist. Corporations can do things that result in the harm and deaths of thousands of people and nothing will happen. Alex Jones’ problem is that he is an individual and it is comparably easy to prosecute and punish an individual. Alex Jones was not an institution. Had he been Fox News or some other more powerful media INSTITUTION, there would have been no punishment.

However, using a despicable individual like Alex Jones as an example of how individuals get comparably more unfair judgments against them when compared to similar crimes committed by INSTITUTIONS seems like a losing battle to me. I’m sure you can find more sympathetic individuals who have had unfair judgments levied against them to make your argument.