The tears you see on my face is crocodile tears

[mapuc]

Who would cry tears on this guy Alex Jones. If any tears it would be crocodile tears.

A Connecticut jury has found that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones must pay $965 million to several family members of those killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting for spreading lies that the shooting was fake.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-jones-sandy-hook-verdict-connecticut_n_633ddfd6e4b03e8038c52b11

I have nothing against people who believe in conspiracy-What I'm against is when they hurt people like Alex did.

Markus

[Ostfriese]

Yeah, and in preparation he has already declared his company bankrupt, and another company (also in his possession) has taken over.


And of course he hasn't learned anything, now it's the deep state that wants to silence him.
Amazingly enough there are still more than enough idiots around who believe him.

[Gilbou]

Almost a billion.


That's quite a huge amount :doh:

[mapuc]

A Danish newspaper had an issue about this on their FB-wall and someone wrote in the comment.

This court have killed free speech. My reaction when I read it :nope:

It had nothing to do with free speech what Alex said in all his program about this school shooting.

What could be said about Alex and free speech is that he violated it.

Free speech comes with responsibility

Markus

[Jimbuna]

I doubt anyone will see a single dollar.

[Platapus]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

[Otto Harkaman]

anything you say can and will be used against you

[Platapus]

Freedom is being able to tell your wife that it is not the jeans that makes her butt look big


Wisdom is knowing not to do that. :up:

[Buddahaid]

Just to be clear.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The asshat was sued for his lawful exercising of his free speech right. He wasn't arrested for saying it.

[MaDef]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

True, but me thinks this verdict skates pretty close to the edge of that "slippery slope".

[ET2SN]

True, but me thinks this verdict skates pretty close to the edge of that "slippery slope".

How? He was mocking the parents of children who died in a school shooting.
Parents he had never met and did not know. His actions caused those parents to get death threats from his listeners.

If that isn't "the bottom of the barrel", its pretty close. :yep:

[Platapus]

True, but me thinks this verdict skates pretty close to the edge of that "slippery slope".


I don't see any slippery slope here at all.



No one is arresting him. No one is preventing him from saying what every he wants to say. He is just being held accountable for what he says.

[Skybird]

Words somebody says, trigger actions, cause motivations, make people do things and form decisions.

Its like with ideology and why I strictly oppose some - namely Islam - of them: because of their motivational power and the dangeorus stuff they try to motivate for.

You are free to say what you want. He did. Now he is held accountable for what he said, due to the consequences he triggered or helped to support by his words. Because I agree with the need to confront the consequences caused and the actions that took place. I see them as a serious threat to the common good, and in the end: freedom itself. This imo justfies to hold him accountable for what he helped to support.

[MaDef]

How? He was mocking the parents of children who died in a school shooting.
Parents he had never met and did not know. His actions caused those parents to get death threats from his listeners.

If that isn't "the bottom of the barrel", its pretty close. :yep:

I don't see any slippery slope here at all.



No one is arresting him. No one is preventing him from saying what every he wants to say. He is just being held accountable for what he says.

Alex Jones may be a nut-job, but even nut-jobs have a right to speak their minds.

This is just the "next step" for the "cancel culture" ideal, next it will become illegal (criminal) to express certain views in public (such as it is in Sweden, Germany & the U.K.).When you start censuring people for their opinions everybody looses, where do you draw the line?

[Buddahaid]

Alex Jones may be a nut-job, but even nut-jobs have a right to speak their minds.

This is just the "next step" for the "cancel culture" ideal, next it will become illegal (criminal) to express certain views in public (such as it is in Sweden, Germany & the U.K.).When you start censuring people for their opinions everybody looses, where do you draw the line?

Ridiculous. He can continue saying these things all he wants and continue to be sued for doing it. He was sued by pivate citizens whom he had caused damage to. No different than suing someone for slander or causing damage to your property.

[mapuc]

Of course there are free speech in many countries, where USA is one of them.

I also know that beside having this free speech you have also a responsibility for what comes out of your mouth.

Alex should have when the first report of death threats against some of these parents have stopped right there.

In fact he so to say in his weekly speech encourage his followers to continue.
(This is taken from a Danish news paper, who had an article some month ago)

The verdict should have been prison-Cause he has no possibility to pay such a huge amount.

Secondly.
I hope they get these listerne who have sent death threats to these parents.

Sending death threats has nothing to do with free speech.

Markus

[Dowly]

I encourage everyone in need of a good laugh to go watch videos of the trial. Especially the one's with Alex Jones giving testimony. It's comedy gold. :haha:

[Jimbuna]

I encourage everyone in need of a good laugh to go watch videos of the trial. Especially the one's with Alex Jones giving testimony. It's comedy gold. :haha:

True that :)

[MaDef]

Ridiculous. He can continue saying these things all he wants and continue to be sued for doing it. He was sued by pivate citizens whom he had caused damage to. No different than suing someone for slander or causing damage to your property.

Which part? the fact that crazy people should be able to speak their minds? Or the Idea that the "cancel culture" is making inroads into curtailing "free speech"?

[Buddahaid]

The part where you can't separate the government repressing free speech from a civil suit for damages.

[Ostfriese]

The verdict should have been prison-Cause he has no possibility to pay such a huge amount.


Well, a prison term is a verdict given in a criminal case (by the state). The Alex Jones case was a civil lawsuit.

[Ostfriese]

The part where you can't separate the government repressing free speech from a civil suit for damages.


You know the right wingers' definition of free speech, do you? "I can say what I want, so shut the f* up!"

[MaDef]

You know the right wingers' definition of free speech, do you? "I can say what I want, so shut the f* up!"

I may not agree with what you say, but I did don a uniform and defended (and still defend) your right to say what's on your mind.

[Buddahaid]

I may not agree with what you say, but I did don a uniform and defended (and still defend) your right to say what's on your mind.

You can and I agree with you, but the first amendment doesn't shield either of us from being sued for slander or other harm that can be caused.

[mapuc]

Well, a prison term is a verdict given in a criminal case (by the state). The Alex Jones case was a civil lawsuit.

You right I keep on forgetting your law is somehow different from ours here in Scandinavia.

Here Alex would have stand trial in an ordinary court-Criminal case.
I guess he would have been accused of defamation(Trying to find the English word for Injurier, which is more accurate than defamation)

I copied following from Danish Criminal law

Libel is a term for defamation and covers e.g. over derogatory and insulting statements or actions towards other persons.

It is illegal to make or disseminate libelous or defamatory statements about others in public. This means that you must neither violate the name or reputation of others, nor hang people out on social media and accuse them of actions that they have not committed.

Well forgot the next most important about jail.

Here a person who is convicted and can't pay-Will be prisoner and the state will pay the money to the victim.

Markus

[Ostfriese]

I may not agree with what you say, but I did don a uniform and defended (and still defend) your right to say what's on your mind.

Even if I was a US citizen (which I‘m not) you certainly haven‘t done anything for me.
And as before: Jones‘ right to free speech has not been limited in any way. He just has to learn that actions have consequences and that there are not just rights in this world but also responsibilities.

[Rockstar]

This is hilarious

https://youtu.be/x-QcbOphxYs

[Rockstar]

…Jones‘ right to free speech has not been limited in any way. He just has to learn that actions have consequences and that there are not just rights in this world but also responsibilities.

^ We have a winner, give that man a Kewpie Doll

DEFAMATION

Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements). State common law and statutory law governs defamation actions, and each state varies in their standards for defamation and potential damages. Defamation is a tricky area of law as the lines between stating an opinion versus a fact can be vague, and defamation tests the limits of the first amendment freedoms of speech and press.

Elements

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.