Alex Jones - Two Stops Past Barking?

[petee]

for once, do read the comments

"It's a Tremendous Amount of Information:" The Details about Alex Jones' Phone - emptywheel

After accidentally sharing information with plaintiffs lawyer, Alex Jones' lawyers were put in a position where they had to admit to failing to comply with discovery or clawing back the information.

www.emptywheel.net

my favorite:
IANAL so I just don’t get why judge Gamble doesn’t start screaming and throwing things or burst into uncontrollable laughter.

 

[Raheem]

Wealthy conspiracist (and just plain divisive) right wing fucks have very deep pockets.

Maybe, but I reckon his multimillionaire cypto sponsor is probably himself.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Maybe, but I reckon his multimillionaire cypto sponsor is probably himself.

Or Putin

 

[Knotted]

Not been following this Sandy Hook case, but it looks like an extremely serious breach of free speech. Whatever vile harassement he's committed the fact that he's being coerced to state that it happened is concerning to say the least.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Srsly?

 

[teqniq]

Knotted What exactly are you trying to say here? I don't think you'll find anyone has been coercing him into anything.

 

[andysays]

Not been following this Sandy Hook case, but it looks like an extremely serious breach of free speech. Whatever vile harassement he's committed the fact that he's being coerced to state that it happened is concerning to say the least.

I haven't been following as closely as some, but enough to see that this is a pretty inadequate summary of what's happened.

And to reduce it to a "free speech" is simply swallowing Jones's own bullshit.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Not been following this Sandy Hook case, but it looks like an extremely serious breach of free speech. Whatever vile harassement he's committed the fact that he's being coerced to state that it happened is concerning to say the least.

If I had a TV show and tracked down your identity and ran regular pieces calling you a paedophile would that be legitimate free speech?

 

[Knotted]

If I had a TV show and tracked down your identity and ran regular pieces calling you a paedophile would that be legitimate free speech?

As I say I haven't been following this and there maybe nasty harassment or defamation going on I haven't caught up with. But nobody should be ordered to state a sequence of events happened. It's outrageous isn't it? People are entitled to their misinformation and they are entitled to the monetisation of their misinformation. We cannot have courts dictating what can and cannot be said. What precedent does this set? This seems very basic.

 

[two sheds]

you don't agree with slander/libel laws or inciting people to violence.

You didn't answer this:

If I had a TV show and tracked down your identity and ran regular pieces calling you a paedophile would that be legitimate free speech?

 

[teqniq]

Knotted I suggest you acquaint yourself with some of the background to this before spouting complete bollox.

 

[Knotted]

Knotted I suggest you acquaint yourself with some of the background to this before spouting complete bollox.

OK.

I haven't been following as closely as some, but enough to see that this is a pretty inadequate summary of what's happened.

And to reduce it to a "free speech" is simply swallowing Jones's own bullshit.

Not reducing it to free speech obviously. But looking at the BBC article on it, free speech is clearly being breached, unless they've got it wrong (quite possibly!).

 

[Storm Fox]

Well it might my worth catching up on the events, before making such claims.

Also, If I started an untrue hate campaign against the knotted family over a tragedy that had befallen your family, you would accept this and not expect me to face some kind of legal sanction? Or would you be happy I'm exercising my right to free speech?

Even if a just started saying hateful and untrue things in the confines of this forum, I would expect Editor to kick me off the boards very quickly.
Free speech needs to be truthful. Just making up shit is not free speech. It's lying.

 

[Knotted]

Well it might my worth catching up on the events, before making such claims.

Also, If I started an untrue hate campaign against the knotted family over a tragedy that had befallen your family, you would accept this and not expect me to face some kind of legal sanction? Or would you be happy I'm exercising my right to free speech?

Even if a just started saying hateful and untrue things in the confines of this forum, I would expect Editor to kick me off the boards very quickly.
Free speech needs to be truthful. Just making up shit is not free speech. It's lying.

Again (third time!) not saying there was no wrong doing or that Jones shouldn't be made to pay for defamation/harassement.

Take this statement from plaintiff, Mark Bankston

“Speech is free,” he said, “but lies you have to pay for.”

No you don't. You are perfectly free to lie your arse off and that is the way it should remain.

 

[andysays]

OK.


Not reducing it to free speech obviously. But looking at the BBC article on it, free speech is clearly being breached, unless they've got it wrong (quite possibly!).

I'd be interested in you actually attempting to explain how the article demonstrates that free speech is clearly being breached, because having read it myself it isn't clear to me.

Alex Jones must pay $49.3m for Sandy Hook hoax claim​

 

[cesare]

Freedom of speech, freedom of response. It's a double edged sword.

 

[andysays]

Again (third time!) not saying there was no wrong doing or that Jones shouldn't be made to pay for defamation/harassement.

Take this statement from plaintiff, Mark Bankston

“Speech is free,” he said, “but lies you have to pay for.”

No you don't. You are perfectly free to lie your arse off and that is the way it should remain.

That's a statement from the plaintiff, not the judge.

IANAL, but as I understand it, the basic principle here is that if your lies can be demonstrated to have caused harm, then you can be penalized.

 

[kalidarkone]

Again (third time!) not saying there was no wrong doing or that Jones shouldn't be made to pay for defamation/harassement.

Take this statement from plaintiff, Mark Bankston

“Speech is free,” he said, “but lies you have to pay for.”

No you don't. You are perfectly free to lie your arse off and that is the way it should remain.

That's fine as long as it is realised that there are consequences and accountability.
Alex Jones is being rightly forced to be accountable for the huge and devastating impact of his lies.

Also if you are going to comment I suggest strongly that you do catch up and read the thread before wading in with your size 15s because honestly it makes you look like an incompassionnate idiot.

 

[agricola]

That's a statement from the plaintiff, not the judge.

IANAL, but as I understand it, the basic principle here is that if your lies can be demonstrated to have caused harm, then you can be penalized.

Indeed, and I struggle to see how anyone could think that would be a bad thing even on those terms (just lies that cause harm or cost to another). When you factor in that Jones deliberately did this in order to enrich himself it is many times worse.

 

[JimW]

Again (third time!) not saying there was no wrong doing or that Jones shouldn't be made to pay for defamation/harassement.

Take this statement from plaintiff, Mark Bankston

“Speech is free,” he said, “but lies you have to pay for.”

No you don't. You are perfectly free to lie your arse off and that is the way it should remain.

Completely disagree, Bankston's encapsulation is a neat summary - it's one thing to say lie about having served in the army himself etc., and another to lie about what other people have or have not done. He's called grieving parents crisis actors and there's a cost to a lie like that.

 

[Yossarian]

No you don't. You are perfectly free to lie your arse off and that is the way it should remain.

If your neighbour was Piers Morgan and he used his massive presence in the media to falsely accuse you of being a paedophile, causing an angry mob to drive you from your home, do you think you would have a legitimate grievance that should be addressed in court? And if so, would it be unfair for Morgan to be asked in court whether he believes his allegations?

 

[Cid]

 

[Storm Fox]

Again (third time!) not saying there was no wrong doing or that Jones shouldn't be made to pay for defamation/harassement.

So people can lie without repercussion but don't worry they know it's 'wrong' so that's OK then? That is a rather brave position to take.

No you don't. You are perfectly free to lie your arse off and that is the way it should remain.

And look where this has got us.

Hatred against minorities of all kinds.
Climate denial to the point where people are denying it hot where all they have to do is stand outside. (This was happening in the last UK heatwave)
Acceptance of conspiracy theories in general by a growing proportion of the population and many more things

 

[Cid]

There are no jurisdictions with absolute rights to free speech... The US right itself is more restrictive than I think most of its free speech advocates are willing to concede. This is a defamation case, an extremely well established one at that. Taking snippets of what the lawyers said out of context doesn't make it a violation of free speech rights.

 

[planetgeli]

As I say I haven't been following this and there maybe nasty harassment or defamation going on I haven't caught up with. But nobody should be ordered to state a sequence of events happened. It's outrageous isn't it? People are entitled to their misinformation and they are entitled to the monetisation of their misinformation. We cannot have courts dictating what can and cannot be said. What precedent does this set? This seems very basic.

BIB - How so? Is that some moral code in a holy book? Something enshrined in law somewhere? What entitles them to this?

 

[Cid]

Also Knotted perhaps people are coming back at you hard on this because framing it in free speech terms with no real background knowledge is pretty standard right wing grifter technique.

 

[hitmouse]

Sadly, this is only a civil case so no jailtime. I know it would be difficult to prosecute, but you would think there would be some kind of criminal level harassment case that could be made of all this. He's been so persistent in his abuse of these people for no reason whatsoever, that there should be something other than civil law that applies.

I wonder whether some of his buffoonery during the trial might amount to contempt of court?

 

[Cid]

I think this case uses laws for press freedom of speech, which are limited to cases where lies are published 'knowingly and recklessly', i.e with malice. It's worth noting too that we didn't get to see the phase of the trial where this is established, because inforwars' legal team were so staggeringly incompetent in the disclosure phase that a default judgment was issued.

 

[Knotted]

Completely disagree, Bankston's encapsulation is a neat summary - it's one thing to say lie about having served in the army himself etc., and another to lie about what other people have or have not done. He's called grieving parents crisis actors and there's a cost to a lie like that.

Do you really think that judges will make the distinctions you are making in the future? Again look at the precedent that's being set. And (fourth time now!!) calling the parents actors is possibly defamatory, and any campaign against them is clearly wrong. But he should be free to say Sandy Hook didn't happen, and looking at the statements surrounding the case it does look as if his legitimate free speech is being curtailed along with his illegitimate free speech. And the various responses pointing out the latter are missing the point.

Honestly amazed at the responses I'm getting. This is basic stuff.

Will look into the judge's statement later when I get a chance and go through this properly.

 

[Knotted]

So people can lie without repercussion but don't worry they know it's 'wrong' so that's OK then? That is a rather brave position to take.





And look where this has got us.

Hatred against minorities of all kinds.
Climate denial to the point where people are denying it hot where all they have to do is stand outside. (This was happening in the last UK heatwave)
Acceptance of conspiracy theories in general by a growing proportion of the population and many more things

I don't want the state to police this stuff. I think it would set dangerous precedents and also don't think it would be effective. Fighting misinformation is a fact of the modern world and people have to work out how to live with this ongoing struggle. I hear misinformation about climate, about the EU, about immigration almost every day. I think pretty much the whole media establishment spreads misinformation about inflation and the cost of living atm. I try to do my bit against it, but calling the cops on it would not be the way go. Surely?