• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sandy Hook parents sue Alex Jones for defamation

Alex Jones is a absolute scumbag. If he believes the conspiracy, he's mentally ill. If its just for ratings he's callously using people who are suffering and causing them more suffering
 
Sandy Hook parents sue Alex Jones

Parents of Sandy Hook victims, fed up with Alex Jones' lying about them, have filed suit for $1,000,000+.
Three parents whose children were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 filed a defamation lawsuit on Tuesday against Alex Jones, the right-wing conspiracy theorist who has long claimed the shooting was “completely fake” and a “giant hoax” perpetrated by opponents of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html

Sounds like they're letting him off cheap. Maybe start at $100 million and negotiate down?
 
Good.

Seriously, Jones' false conspiracy crap was a large part of his idiot listeners hounding these people, sending them death threats, and other real-world nightmares. I'd be perfectly happy if they put him out of business for good.
 
I thought 'free speech' was enshrined in the US constitution, so they might find it difficult to win on the grounds of defamation. It sounds more like stalking and harassment.
 
Vixen said:
I thought 'free speech' was enshrined in the US constitution, so they might find it difficult to win on the grounds of defamation. It sounds more like stalking and harassment.
Click to expand...
And I thought defamation was still a legal tort and that, if proven in court, the 1st amendment has nothing to do with it (it is).

Like the other rights "enshrined" in the [amended] Constitution, freedom of speech is not absolute.
 
Vixen said:
I thought 'free speech' was enshrined in the US constitution, so they might find it difficult to win on the grounds of defamation. It sounds more like stalking and harassment.
Click to expand...

You hold a common misperception of the concept of "free speech." The First Amendment means that the government can't prevent you from expressing your beliefs or punish you for it afterward. It doesn't mean you can say anything you want without consequences. It does not prevent prosecution for crimes when speech leads to action, like inciting to riot or obstruction of justice, nor does it prevent civil action when speech injures someone. In this case, the plaintiffs claim they were injured by the defendant's speech, and now they get to take it to a jury.
 
AJM8125 said:
Blinky hasn’t anything to worry about. All he has to do is prove the hoax. Should be a slam dunk, right?
Click to expand...
I thought that they would have to demonstrate that Jones knew his allegations were false in order to claim damages. At the very least, it would have to be demonstrated that Jones had no foundation for these allegations or had no "reasonable" belief.

Either way, it is another field day for the lawyers.
 
psionl0 said:
I thought that they would have to demonstrate that Jones knew his allegations were false in order to claim damages. At the very least, it would have to be demonstrated that Jones had no foundation for these allegations or had no "reasonable" belief.

Either way, it is another field day for the lawyers.
Click to expand...
Given the demonstrable effects (ongoing harassment and threats) of these claims on the parents, the onus will be on him to show that he had a reasonable basis for them, a very difficult prospect. It seems to me that the more difficult part will be proving to the court that it was his claims that led to the harassment. It should be doable since AFAIK his was the loudest voice calling Sandy Hook a hoax, but I don't know if he originated the claim or just jumped into the driver's seat of an existing CT bandwagon.
 
Vixen said:
I thought 'free speech' was enshrined in the US constitution, so they might find it difficult to win on the grounds of defamation. It sounds more like stalking and harassment.
Click to expand...

You do understand, don't you, that the constraints imposed by the constitution are entirely on the government? In other words, the government won't pass any laws which constrain the citizens freedom of religion and expression (in terms). Free speech doesn't mean you aren't liable for the consequences of what you say, it just means that you're allowed to say it in the first place.
 
psionl0 said:
I thought that they would have to demonstrate that Jones knew his allegations were false in order to claim damages. At the very least, it would have to be demonstrated that Jones had no foundation for these allegations or had no "reasonable" belief.
...
Click to expand...

They are not public figures, like politicians or celebrities, and the standards are not as strict. Their claim is that they were injured by false allegations. His defense would be to prove that the allegations are true, or maybe to assert he thought they were true and had a basis for it. The plaintiffs don't have to prove that he knew they were false, which would usually be the case for a celebrity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom