Alex Jones - Two Stops Past Barking?

[Knotted]

But he can't lie under oath about a belief that evidence shows he does in fact hold despite cynically claiming otherwise (and weaponising that claim)

My understanding that this is even a thing to consider is only because of the nature of US defamation law. I think we should be scepitical about defamation law, even when it goes a way that we want it to.

 

[stdP]

That's the legal definition of duress as relates to a defence which isn't really relevant. But OK I overstated the case when I said he was under threat of perjury. My bad, but the point still remains.

Well, I put it in the form of a URL parenthetically called "the legal definition of duress", but I don't see how simply saying something in court is duress unless one considers the position of "say you lied and be found guilty/continue lying when you can be proved to have known you were lying and be found guilty" amounts to duress. But we can agree to differ on that as it's largely academic.

But, again, this case wasn't about free speech. Jones' legal team didn't even bother to try and make a case about free speech or indeed anything else. This was a default judgement.

Given that you haven't read some parts of the thread (neither have I TBH - impossible to keep up with his bullshittery), I found a little-known website which has a (possibly biased but nevertheless easily readable) summary of Jones' involvement with the events surrounding the Sandy Hook shootings:

Alex Jones - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll even copy and paste some choice words from the section there:

Jones spread discredited conspiracy theories about the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting being a false flag operation by gun control advocates. He stated "no one died" in Sandy Hook, and the incident was "staged", "synthetic", "manufactured", "a giant hoax" and "completely fake with actors.

On April 16, 2018, Neil Heslin, father of victim Jesse Lewis, filed a defamation suit against Jones, Infowars and Free Speech Systems... Jones was found to be in contempt of court even before the trial started, failing to produce witnesses and materials relevant to the procedures.

On June 26, 2018, six families of victims and an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit... for spreading false claims, resulting in the harassment, stalking and threatening of survivors. On March 25, 2019, Jeremy Richman, one of the plaintiffs, whose daughter Avielle was killed, committed suicide. Jones, through his lawyer, offered condolences to Richman's family, then later that day on his show suggested that Richman had been murdered, and that his death had something to do with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference.

By February 2019, the plaintiffs won a series of court rulings requiring Jones to testify under oath. Jones was later ordered to undergo a sworn deposition, along with three other defendants related to the operation of Infowars. He was also ordered to turn over internal business documents related to Infowars. In this deposition in the last week of March 2019, Jones acknowledged the deaths were real, stating he had "almost like a form of psychosis", where he "basically thought everything was staged."

On September 27, 2021, a district judge in Texas issued three default judgments against Jones, requiring him to pay all damages in two lawsuits. These rulings came after Jones repeatedly failed to hand over documents and evidence as ordered by the court, which the judge characterized as "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules." On November 15, 2021, a superior court judge in Connecticut issued another default judgment in the fourth defamation lawsuit against Jones, and the amount he must pay the families will be determined at trial. As part of the legal settlement made against him, Jones claimed assets of $6.2 million in January 2022.

On June 2, 2022, Jones's attorneys asked the judge in the Connecticut lawsuit to drop them from the case. The judge said she had heard this before, citing thirteen times in the past four years when Jones' attorneys asked to replace each other or be dropped from the case. She ordered them to continue to represent Jones until she ruled on the motion on June 15.

The first of three jury trials to determine defamation damages against Jones (Heslin v. Jones) began in Texas on July 25, 2022. The plaintiffs' attorney revealed he would be seeking an award of $150M from the jury. The plaintiffs, Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, are parents of Jesse Lewis, one of the 20 students killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. Heslin, Jesse's father, testified on August 2 that after his son died, conspiracy theorists, fueled by Jones' statements, fired into his house and car and subjected him and his family to various forms of harassment. Heslin also noted that Jones' failure to attend court during his testimony was a "cowardly act." While Heslin was testifying, Jones was broadcasting his show, during which he called the grieving father "slow" and "manipulated by some very bad people."

Lewis also asked Jones: "Do you think I'm an actor?" Jones responded, "No, I don't think you're an actor." As the only person testifying in his defense, Jones admitted that the Sandy Hook shooting was "100% real," and he agreed with his own attorney that it was "absolutely irresponsible" to push falsehoods about the shooting and its victims. Jones also testified that he had complied with court orders in defamation suits and that he is "bankrupt."

On August 3, 2022, cross-examination revealed that Jones had not fully complied with court orders to provide text messages and emails for pretrial evidence gathering. In response to this testimony, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble of Travis County District Court admonished him later for "lying under oath" with respect to these claims, as his failure to comply with court orders in defamation suits was the reason that he lost them and that bankruptcy proceedings had yet to be adjudicated and completed. Gamble stated, "[y]ou're under oath. That means things must actually be true when you say them."

After the judge left the courtroom, Jones stated that Lewis and Heslin were being "controlled."

While the jury was deliberating on the amount of compensatory damages, Jones went on his radio show and called the proceedings "an incredible spectacle" backed by "globalists" trying to shut him down.

None of these actions to me are those of a man acting under any kind of duress other and the self-inflicted panic of trying to unfuck himself out of the corner he's fucked himself in to. It's safe to say I've probably picked the worst bits out of that particular section, that I'm biased and I wouldn't piss on Alex Jones if he were on fire; it'd be much too dangerous. I'd wait until the fire had subsided, tell him that fire hoses were a Jewish plot, and then piss on him.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I don't see his right to defame the victims v his right to lie about the events as meaningfully distinct tbh. In that 'the whole thing was made up but I'm not calling you a liar, bereaved parent' is obviously logically incoherent. Standing up in court and trying that would basically be tipping the wink to his loon army to have at it. He's obviously decided not doing that is better for his bank balance but that's what supporting his supposed right to take that line is defending.

 

[Knotted]

Well, I put it in the form of a URL parenthetically called "the legal definition of duress", but I don't see how simply saying something in court is duress unless one considers the position of "say you lied and be found guilty/continue lying when you can be proved to have known you were lying and be found guilty" amounts to duress. But we can agree to differ on that as it's largely academic.

But, again, this case wasn't about free speech. Jones' legal team didn't even bother to try and make a case about free speech or indeed anything else. This was a default judgement.

Given that you haven't read some parts of the thread (neither have I TBH - impossible to keep up with his bullshittery), I found a little-known website which has a (possibly biased but nevertheless easily readable) summary of Jones' involvement with the events surrounding the Sandy Hook shootings:

Alex Jones - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll even copy and paste some choice words from the section there:


None of these actions to me are those of a man acting under any kind of duress other and the self-inflicted panic of trying to unfuck himself out of the corner he's fucked himself in to. It's safe to say I've probably picked the worst bits out of that particular section, that I'm biased and I wouldn't piss on Alex Jones if he were on fire; it'd be much too dangerous. I'd wait until the fire had subsided, tell him that fire hoses were a Jewish plot, and then piss on him.

Look it's not that I care about Alex Jones being wronged or that his free speech is being curtailed (and I really think it just is). You can say it's entirely his own fault for getting himself in that situation. Well OK. It's just that we're looking at the functioning of courts using laws that are designed to protect the rich and powerful (albeit not in this particular case) and we're seeing real eye opening stuff.

Fwiw defamation cases inherently relate to free speech because they're a limit on free speech. The left should have its own standards independently of the courts.

 

[Knotted]

I don't see his right to defame the victims v his right to lie about the events as meaningfully distinct tbh. In that 'the whole thing was made up but I'm not calling you a liar, bereaved parent' is obviously logically incoherent. Standing up in court and trying that would basically be tipping the wink to his loon army to have at it. He's obviously decided not doing that is better for his bank balance but that's what supporting his supposed right to take that line is defending.

This is a good point. Credit to Yuwipi Woman as well for a similar point.

 

[Cid]

Look it's not that I care about Alex Jones being wronged or that his free speech is being curtailed (and I really think it just is). You can say it's entirely his own fault for getting himself in that situation. Well OK. It's just that we're looking at the functioning of courts using laws that are designed to protect the rich and powerful (albeit not in this particular case) and we're seeing real eye opening stuff.

Fwiw defamation cases inherently relate to free speech because they're a limit on free speech. The left should have its own standards independently of the courts.

I think you need to understand that it's impossible for dispute mediation to strike perfect balances. What you're arguing for is an unaccountable press, and - last time I checked - the press generally serve the ruling classes more than anyone else.

 

[cesare]

Surely yes, of course statements of admission in court are made usually under duress. That's why they're in court!

But OK if he's (and he probably is) a blowhard who doesn't really believe what he says and retreats in order to mitigate his case, he's still having to perform this particular retreat in order to mitigate his case.

You still seem to disassociate him from his monetising Infowars machine.

 

[Knotted]

I think you need to understand that it's impossible for dispute mediation to strike perfect balances. What you're arguing for is an unaccountable press, and - last time I checked - the press generally serve the ruling classes more than anyone else.

I'm hazy about what counts as press for legal purposes in the US, but I'm thinking about how US defamation law might be used against a left wing outlet especially one that doesn't have the money to fight it. I'm not sure how much accountability something like Fox News has in practice, but I'm guessing not much unless they go really overboard like Alex Jones does.

You still seem to disassociate him from his monetising Infowars machine.

OK fair point.

 

[Cid]

I'm hazy about what counts as press for legal purposes in the US, but I'm thinking about how US defamation law might be used against a left wing outlet especially one that doesn't have the money to fight it. I'm not sure how much accountability something like Fox News has in practice, but I'm guessing not much unless they go really overboard like Alex Jones does.



OK fair point.

So again I have to point out that this case has nothing to do with free speech rights. There is a reason people keep telling you this... Jones never contested the free speech element. You seem to think that this case works as in illustration of a specific overreach of the law. It doesn't, because it can't. This case cannot tell you anything about free speech, save to illustrate the damages that can be awarded if it's proven.

Why I'm mentioning that again here is that it hasn't functionally changed any of the assumptions that people work under. Defamation is still not a particularly easy action to bring in the US. There's plenty of case law etc, and this case will make no contribution to that. Your left wing outlet still needs to be shown to have maliciously lied about an individual, and caused them to suffer losses. And remember you can usually moderate losses in free speech cases; so if left outlet intentionally publishes a lie about Bucker Tarlson, it can also publish a timely retraction.

I think the concern you have here is really more to do with access to justice... That's fine. And rights expansion can affect it to some extent... But I don't think an expansion of free speech rights specifically would, not without wider reform. And potentially brings in a range of other problems, e.g left outlet now being subject to the full force of Bucker Tarlson's unmoderated speech.

(if anyone names a paper 'Left Outlet' I'm suing)

 

[cesare]

UK views on fos will probably be in context of UK system rather than us constitution etc. Just a flag.

 

[Knotted]

So again I have to point out that this case has nothing to do with free speech rights. There is a reason people keep telling you this... Jones never contested the free speech element. You seem to think that this case works as in illustration of a specific overreach of the law. It doesn't, because it can't. This case cannot tell you anything about free speech, save to illustrate the damages that can be awarded if it's proven.

As I understand it all defamation cases are free speech (first amendment) cases. That Alex Jones wasn't contesting that part means that the free speech aspect is not part of the ruling (I understand) but I don't see why that negates all possible free speech concerns you or I might have.

Why I'm mentioning that again here is that it hasn't functionally changed any of the assumptions that people work under. Defamation is still not a particularly easy action to bring in the US. There's plenty of case law etc, and this case will make no contribution to that. Your left wing outlet still needs to be shown to have maliciously lied about an individual, and caused them to suffer losses. And remember you can usually moderate losses in free speech cases; so if left outlet intentionally publishes a lie about Bucker Tarlson, it can also publish a timely retraction.

The "cause them to suffer losses" part of the above is what I find concerning. You publish something "causing" somebody else to act on your words, is that really your fault? I can understand losses in terms of damage to reputation, but the Jones/Sandey Hook case seems to use a broader definition that that.

You know more about this than I do, but if your outlet is still having to issue retractions, then that is still a chilling effect on free speech.

I think the concern you have here is really more to do with access to justice... That's fine. And rights expansion can affect it to some extent... But I don't think an expansion of free speech rights specifically would, not without wider reform. And potentially brings in a range of other problems, e.g left outlet now being subject to the full force of Bucker Tarlson's unmoderated speech.

(if anyone names a paper 'Left Outlet' I'm suing)

I'm used to a UK context, and I'm sure the US isn't as bad on defamation law. But I wonder how much moderation old Bucker has anyway.

 

[weltweit]

45 million, that poor man, how misunderstood he must be, what a miscarriage of justice it must be, where oh where will be find the money to pay the fine and the lawyers I bet they will cost a packet also. Perhaps his myriad loyal followers may contribute the sums needed, he certainly seems like the wronged party.

not

 

[stdP]

Once again - this isn't and never was a free speech case. Jones was accused of (non-criminal) defamation and was found guilty by default.

But in the event that you're talking hypotheticals (and I think they'd be better addressed in a separate thread TBH), a classic litmus of the US system is shouting fire in a crowded theatre which made its way in to precedent, eventually ending up as defining "banned speech [is what] would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot)". So, the proverbial whipping people up with falsehoods in to a lynch mob.

Now if it were a free speech case (and it wasn't), the prosecution might argue that if you're the host of a popular wide-ranging programme, telling your listeners that an event is faked and that the so-called "victims" aren't real, and the parents of the so-called victims are actors trying to manipulate the media for political gain, and some of your listeners then start perpetrating violence upon those people, then you are guilty of something like incitement to riot. Sure - the people who actually shot up the house after hearing your show are also guilty of a different crime.

What is it about the facts of the case (if it were hypothetically to be a free speech case) that makes you think it extends beyond the "losses in terms of damage to reputation"? I genuinely don't understand what it is about this case that you seem to think it crossing some sort of line.

In a hypothetical scenario where I went on my popular youtube channel and said something bonkers like that Boris Johnson was actually editor in a fat suit (well, you never see the two of them in the same place at the same time) and some nutter then starts stalking editor, damaging their home and forcing them to move, threatening their friends and colleagues and otherwise being a bad egg, have I participated in bringing about material harm to editor? If I call myself a character or a performance artist, do I deserve to escape all blame from convincing internet randoms to fuck someone's life up in order to stroke my ego? Do you really think that because my act is just words and caused no direct harm (but plenty indirectly by proxy by my followers) that I'm entirely unaccountable?

 

[Knotted]

Once again - this isn't and never was a free speech case. Jones was accused of (non-criminal) defamation and was found guilty by default.

But in the event that you're talking hypotheticals (and I think they'd be better addressed in a separate thread TBH), a classic litmus of the US system is shouting fire in a crowded theatre which made its way in to precedent, eventually ending up as defining "banned speech [is what] would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot)". So, the proverbial whipping people up with falsehoods in to a lynch mob.

Now if it were a free speech case (and it wasn't), the prosecution might argue that if you're the host of a popular wide-ranging programme, telling your listeners that an event is faked and that the so-called "victims" aren't real, and the parents of the so-called victims are actors trying to manipulate the media for political gain, and some of your listeners then start perpetrating violence upon those people, then you are guilty of something like incitement to riot. Sure - the people who actually shot up the house after hearing your show are also guilty of a different crime.

What is it about the facts of the case (if it were hypothetically to be a free speech case) that makes you think it extends beyond the "losses in terms of damage to reputation"? I genuinely don't understand what it is about this case that you seem to think it crossing some sort of line.

In a hypothetical scenario where I went on my popular youtube channel and said something bonkers like that Boris Johnson was actually editor in a fat suit (well, you never see the two of them in the same place at the same time) and some nutter then starts stalking editor, damaging their home and forcing them to move, threatening their friends and colleagues and otherwise being a bad egg, have I participated in bringing about material harm to editor? If I call myself a character or a performance artist, do I deserve to escape all blame from convincing internet randoms to fuck someone's life up in order to stroke my ego? Do you really think that because my act is just words and caused no direct harm (but plenty indirectly by proxy by my followers) that I'm entirely unaccountable?

It's a defamation case not an incitement case. Both would relate to free speech, because they're limits on free speech. I'm inclined to that think that incitement to violence would fit Alex Jones' shitbaggery better than defamation, but that's not what we got.

 

[weltweit]

And if he goes to prison for non payment of fines, who pray will continue his important work?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

A half-baked thought:

Back when I was a lad 'freedom' seemed the preserve of the 'left', the 'alternative'. Freedom from stupifying conservative social mores, freedom to dress how you want, be who you want, say what you want, have sex with who you want, take what drugs you want.

We wanna be free, we wanna be free to do what we wanna do
And we wanna get loaded and we wanna have a good time

A lot of young people were drawn to 'alternative' culture, to left leaning politics by the do what you wanna do ethos, the social liberalism (even if class based politics was often absent).

Thirty or forty years later social liberalism is dominant. Young liberal/soft left types I know are all about identity politics, using the right language, you should say this, you can't say that. They can appear to people outside of their bubble po-faced and censorious. The right are now the ones going on about freedom; the freedom to offend, to attack 'wokeness', to react against social liberalism. They've taken the language of freedom that used to be underpinned by ideas of peace, love, unity & respect and use the same arguments, only underpinned by aggression, hate, division & contempt.

The right promote the idea that they are the alternative, that they are about doing what you wanna do. Liberals have struggled with this, reacting to 'free speech' reactionary provocations with 'you can't say that' or serious faced lectures which do nothing to disprove notions that they're killjoys telling people what to think. The right have tried, with some success, to claim the concept of 'freedom' for themselves.

I think Alex Jones' popularity has been built on this kind of don't tell me what to say freedom of thought - freedom from the constraints of decency or reality; opposed to and a reaction against the socially liberal consensus, which neo-liberal states have adopted in a top down way.

Like I say, this is a half-baked thought and I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but the last few pages of this thread have made it pop into my brain...

Another half-baked thought... there are two different notions of freedom/rights between males and females, not just liberal/conservative or old/young. Men tend to see freedom as the freedom of action (more as "liberty"). Women tend to see freedom as a generalized right to be left alone (more as "privacy").

 

[8ball]

Another half-baked thought... there are two different notions of rights between males and females, not just liberal/conservative or old/young. Men tend to see freedom as the freedom of action (more as "liberty"). Women tend to see freedom as a generalized right to be left alone (more as "privacy").

I think another two hours in the oven and maybe it will be half-baked..

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I think another two hours in the oven and maybe it will be half-baked..

Fair enough. Sometimes ideas take a while to percolate.

 

[8ball]

Fair enough. Sometimes ideas take a while to percolate.

I’m just trying to bounce it off a few slightly stereotype-laden ideas, but I think most
of the things that you’d call “liberty” really come down to the right not to be interfered with.

Maybe there’s a degree to which men want to be left alone by Government and women want to be left alone by men, and we use one word for the former and one word for the latter.

 

[Dom Traynor]

I’m just trying to bounce it off a few slightly stereotype-laden ideas, but I think most
of the things that you’d call “liberty” really come down to the right not to be interfered with.

Maybe there’s a degree to which men want to be left alone by Government and women want to be left alone by men, and we use one word for the former and one word for the latter.

Isn't that literally what yuwipi woman said?

 

[8ball]

Isn't that literally what yuwipi woman said?

No.

“Liberty” is much more nebulous in terms of whether it is a negative or positive right.

Also, some of the rights being fought over right now are pretty solidly positive rights.

I’d say if you were to break them down by sex you’d find the ones considered to be “male” to be negative rights, and the ones considered “female”’to be more of a mixture.

That’s just my initial take tbf.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

 

[Spandex]

Another half-baked thought... there are two different notions of freedom/rights between males and females, not just liberal/conservative or old/young. Men tend to see freedom as the freedom of action (more as "liberty"). Women tend to see freedom as a generalized right to be left alone (more as "privacy").

This isn't that half baked an idea.

Freedom to... vs freedom from... is a well established idea. And those with more power tend to value freedom to... while those with less power value freedom from... more. These two ideas of freedom are often in opposition to each other.

This is the core of yesterday's debate on here. Knotted argued strongly for Alex Jones' freedom to say whatever he likes, but seems to have forgotten about victims' families freedom from baying mobs whipped up by media personalities who've deliberately made shit up for $$$.

 

[Knotted]

This isn't that half baked an idea.

Freedom to... vs freedom from... is a well established idea. And those with more power tend to value freedom to... while those with less power value freedom from... more. These two ideas of freedom are often in opposition to each other.

This is the core of yesterday's debate on here. Knotted argued strongly for Alex Jones' freedom to say whatever he likes, but seems to have forgotten about victims' families freedom from baying mobs whipped up by media personalities who've deliberately made shit up for $$$.

OK that's a good way to look at it. So you have a scale of maximising freedom from to maximising freedom to. But then you can also say that you can go about your freedom froms in a way that minimise the friction, the collateral with your freedom tos and vice versa. So there's another scale of minimising or maximising unnecessary collateral. So I don't think we have to just accept legal problems because they're intractable. They're there for reasons in a context of certain interests.

 

[story]

Sorry if this seems a bit soft but I’m unclear about how it’s okay to lie, how lying is something to be upheld as a fundamental right that should be defended in the face of truth.


In extremis we resort to lying, and sometime of course it is necessary, like rage or any other more problematic expression, but lying is one of those things that undermine and corrodes all the stuff we need for a better world.

Would you also support the right to rage about town and cause destruction that way?

 

[Knotted]

It's a matter of whether you want the state to police truth telling.

 

[Ax^]

it hardly 1984, he still has the right to say what he wants but If was to hassle living people and accused them being crisis actors and ruining their lives

they well within their rights to sue him

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

This isn't that half baked an idea.

Freedom to... vs freedom from... is a well established idea. And those with more power tend to value freedom to... while those with less power value freedom from... more. These two ideas of freedom are often in opposition to each other.

This is the core of yesterday's debate on here. Knotted argued strongly for Alex Jones' freedom to say whatever he likes, but seems to have forgotten about victims' families freedom from baying mobs whipped up by media personalities who've deliberately made shit up for $$$.

Thanks, I think you explained where I was going better than I did. People seem to forget that there's a whole host of people whose rights are in balance here. Its not just Alex Jones's right to say whatever he wants, but also the family's right to be left alone, and the public's right to (factual) information.

 

[story]

It's a matter of whether you want the state to police truth telling.

okay so you’re talk about the principle of the thing.

So then we get into the tricky issue of how to police the awful behaviour of people who’ve been let down or actively harmed by their parents, capitalism, poverty etc. If things like moral compass and decency aren’t taught in childhood and they grow up to be arseholes in ways that harm their community, is it really their fault? Should they be permitted to act freely regardless of effects on others? Or is it the state’s responsibility to curb their harmful behaviour? Where is the line between allowing free action and stepping in to curb it?


I‘m trying to make the comparison not to say “yeah but” but to draw out your argument. If you’re going to say that the state should not police the inability to be decent with the truth, where then do you draw the line with respect to poor behaviour in any other quarter? Why is it okay to lie but not to do other questionable stuff?

 

[story]

it hardly 1984, he still has the right to say what he wants but If was to hassle living people and accused them being crisis actors and ruining their lives

they well within their rights to sue him

No one (so far as I know) has been taken to court for saying 9/11 was a fit up or that covid is a hoax. People lie all the time about their crimes and that’s not a crime in itself.