Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alex Jones - Two Stops Past Barking?

Knotted said:
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.
Click to expand...

Missing the point? Jones is not being sued for saying Sandy Hook didn't happen. He isn't being sued for him monetizing him saying Sandy Hook didn't happen.

He is being sued because he by his own admission knowingly defamed named people and they suffered considerable personal and financial harm because of that defamation. It is a particularly egregious, but textbook, example of what defamation is (as indeed will the Dominion / Smartmatic case be).
 
Cid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes I think this seems to be key.
 
Knotted said:
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?
Click to expand...

There are established rules... Publish opinion, fine. Knowing and reckless lies resulting in harm, not fine.
 
The parents can't visit their childrens' graves because this cunt has whipped up his fascist followers to attack them. Their lives have been destroyed first by losing a child and then by having it spread around that they made it all up.

This is hate speech and I think there should be repercussions for hate speech. Or should we allow it to be directed at jews, muslims, black and middle/far eastern people with no repercussions?
 
Knotted said:
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?
Click to expand...
So where does free speech stop and harassment being? If I started following you around in on this forum and shit-posting after every one of your posts, would you expect action to be taken against me?
 
Cid said:
There are established rules... Publish opinion, fine. Knowing and reckless lies resulting in harm, not fine.
Click to expand...

I feel we should be examining these rules.

Storm Fox said:
So where does free speech stop and harassment being? If I started following you around in on this forum and shit-posting after every one of your posts, would you expect action to be taken against me?
Click to expand...

I guess there's borderline cases. What I'm worried about is that this seems to be a moot point in this case. It isn't about Alex Jone's behaviour to the these bereaved parents or his defaming them, it is about the limits of the free press. I think you should be alarmed about that.
 
Knotted said:
I guess there's borderline cases. What I'm worried about is that this seems to be a moot point in this case. It isn't about Alex Jone's behaviour to the these bereaved parents or his defaming them, it is about the limits of the free press. I think you should be alarmed about that.
Click to expand...

This case isn't about his defaming them? It is hard to respond to that one.
 
Knotted said:
I feel we should be examining these rules.



I guess there's borderline cases. What I'm worried about is that this seems to be a moot point in this case. It isn't about Alex Jone's behaviour to the these bereaved parents or his defaming them, it is about the limits of the free press. I think you should be alarmed about that.
Click to expand...

But again, this is a trial for damages. Within that we've had pretty convincing evidence on the free speech aspects, but this isn't a free speech case. AJ could have had that case, but chose not to.
 
Knotted said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is it as concerning as the fact that people, acting on Jones' claims, shot up the survivor's homes? Forced them to move seven times? Issues death threats? Prevented them from visiting their own kids' graves?

Fuck off and die you utter cunt
 
Knotted said:
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.
Click to expand...

There has never been an unqualified right to free speech such that you are immune from any accountability for the consequences of what you say. Otherwise hate speech laws, defamation laws etc could not exist.
 
kalidarkone said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK I'm sorry about how I've gone about this. I am being arrogant, and I'm not doing enough demonstration of compassion. But, unfortunately that's still a bit of a sorry not sorry. Anyway I've said my bit, I think there are good reasons to protect free speech and I've pretty much stated them. If people aren't in the mood for that, I'll fuck off now.
 
Knotted said:
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.
Click to expand...
So imagine your young daughter was killed in an horrendous school attack, And then some hugely popular peddler of lies decides to accuse you of being a 'crisis actor' and that your daughter either didn't die/exist or was killed by someone else.

Imagine then - in the depth of your grief - you're being aggressively hounded by large numbers of people online and in your community accusing you of being a liar.

Imagine it gets so bad you have to move house ten times and you still can't escape the endless harassment. And all this time you get no protection. You can't properly mourn your loss because you're confronted with it every day.

You really think this is all OK in the name of free speech?
 
Knotted said:
OK I'm sorry about how I've gone about this. I am being arrogant, and I'm not doing enough demonstration of compassion. But, unfortunately that's still a bit of a sorry not sorry. Anyway I've said my bit, I think there are good reasons to protect free speech and I've pretty much stated them. If people aren't in the mood for that, I'll fuck off now.
Click to expand...

You seem to think this case establishes some new and dangerous precedent.

1. It doesn't, because it can't, because it's a trial for damages.
2. From the evidence presented it fits within established precedent.

If you want an argument on the limits of free speech, sure, go for it. Do it here or start a thread, doesn't matter to me. But at the moment you're just tying yourself in er... knots.
 
Knotted said:
OK I'm sorry about how I've gone about this. I am being arrogant, and I'm not doing enough demonstration of compassion. But, unfortunately that's still a bit of a sorry not sorry. Anyway I've said my bit, I think there are good reasons to protect free speech and I've pretty much stated them. If people aren't in the mood for that, I'll fuck off now.
Click to expand...
So if you ran this board, would you be all for racists and homophobes being able to spread their hate, and be OK with posters finding out personal information about you and spreading lies via organised networks, taking the hate offline and onto your front door?
 
Cid said:
You seem to think this case establishes some new and dangerous precedent.

1. It doesn't, because it can't, because it's a trial for damages.
2. From the evidence presented it fits within established precedent.

If you want an argument on the limits of free speech, sure, go for it. Do it here or start a thread, doesn't matter to me. But at the moment you're just tying yourself in er... knots.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. It looks to me to be a dangerous law already existing on the books rather than a new dangerous precedent. In general I distrust defamation law.
 
Knotted said:
It's a defamation case, but I think it's more about the incitement from Jones and the harassment by his followers than it is any real damage to their reputations.
Click to expand...

He said they'd faked the death of their child as part of a fascist plot, which had very real and lasting damage to their reputations (hence why the people who harassed them thought themselves justified to do that).
 
editor said:
So if you ran this board, would you be all for racists and homophobes being to spread their hate, and be OK with posters finding out personal information about you and spreading lies via organised networks, taking the hate offline and onto your front door?
Click to expand...

No I'm not a free speech absolutist. It's a question of holding state power to account, and a concern regarding laws that might work against you in other contexts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
  • Locked
  • Poll
Merging the two Trump threads yes/no?
Replies
27
Views
731
editor
editor
Pickman's model
the death of alexei navalny 16.2.24
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
5K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
Dystopiary
Stop the execution of Julius Jones.
Replies
8
Views
784
hash tag
hash tag
deeyo
Ukraine 2022 - Possible Lessons from Past Wars?
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
not-bono-ever
not-bono-ever
cupid_stunt
Russia to stop gas supplies to Europe (1/4/22)
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
338
Views
18K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
Back
Top Bottom