Parents of Sandy Hook victims suing Alex Jones for defamation

Dohnjoe

Don't know if I can post this because it's not a conspiracy, but it is related

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html

Parents of children who were killed in the Sandy Hook shooting are suing Jones for defamation because he has been repeatedly claiming on air that the shooting was a hoax, that relatives were "in on it" and so on

Nonsense can wash in an echo chamber, but it quickly falls apart in a court case. Hope they clean him out.

gmisk

He is the definition of a snake oil salesman... Hope they clear him out

Ipso

I hope he doesn't eat chilli before the case.
https://uproxx.com/news/alex-jones-lawyer-kids-chili/

In order for someone like this to be popular, he requires a legion of brain dead, mouth breathing oxygen thieves to keep him in business.
Hopefully it might shine alight on them also.

gerrybbadd

Lenny Pozner tried this previously vs Wolfgang Halbig. He was unsuccessful in suing him

Cheerful Spring

The problem with Alex Jones there, not an event that not a major conspiracy. I personally think he does not help the debate. Sooner he retires the better ranting and raving and shouting about demons and devils and blood weird stuff his mind clearly disturbed or it's just an act for his audience?

Dohnjoe

He's already backtracking

http://wshu.org/post/alex-jones-backtracking-now-says-sandy-hook-shooting-did-happen#stream/0

Hector Bellend

Why didnt they sue him before now?

Dohnjoe

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Why didnt they sue him before now?

Probably because attention can bring validity (and more attention). It could (and still could) make things worse for these families. Worth bearing in mind that while Jones spent years discrediting the shooting and labeling it a hoax, took him 24 hours to miraculously reverse that position and now admit that it was real

Hector Bellend

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Probably because attention can bring validity (and more attention). It could (and still could) make things worse for these families. Worth bearing in mind that while Jones spent years discrediting the shooting and labeling it a hoax, took him 24 hours to miraculously reverse that position and now admit that it was real

Curious timing to put it mildly.

I'm not suggesting that Alex Jones is correct bout this timing appears random at best.

Hector Bellend

If Alex Jones is the subject of a Lawsuit why are other people of a similar opinion not being sued (perhaps they are and I'm open to correction).

What about Jim Fetzer and others?

Another thing, is there an element of payback by Megyn Kellly after her recent interview with Alex Jones.

Dohnjoe

Hopefully this will set a precedent if successful

The flipside is that lawsuits can bring more attention and bigger audiences to these types of people who.. crave attention and audiences

Ipso

Apart from attention, it might also legitimise the idea of the edtablishment trying to silence him. That industry relies on a good dose of paranoia and narcissism.

We've already had examples on this forum of people defending him when he outright admitted it was all an act.

There's plenty of times he's been proven wrong and made false predictions. There's numerous occasions where his shiftyass behaviour has been clear as day.

But if none of those have convinced conspiracy theorists, nothing will.
And for those that are convinced he becomes part of the conspiracy, since the idea of someone manipulating and controlling conspiracy theory media for profit is an very uncomfortable proposition.

Hector Bellend

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Why didnt they sue him before now?

Probably because attention can bring validity (and more attention). It could (and still could) make things worse for these families. Worth bearing in mind that while Jones spent years discrediting the shooting and labeling it a hoax, took him 24 hours to miraculously reverse that position and now admit that it was real

But this will be the case no matter what time the case is brought. I still don't understand why it was left so late.

Dohnjoe

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I still don't understand why it was left so late.

Prob to do with this

"The suit primarily has to do with a video from April of last year, “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed,” in which Jones commented on a CNN interview between De La Rosa and Anderson Cooper. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/04/17/heres-why-sandy-hook-parents-and-others-are-suing-alex-jones/?utm_term=.5011da39d212

CTers like Jones are smart, pushing free speech just enough to make horrendous claims, but not enough to get sued. Hopefully they've got him with that video - and it can set a precedent.

Chrongen

Alex Jones makes MILLIONS by muddying the waters.

The only reason he hasn't been shot is because he connects crap like alien abductions with actual possibilities such as the Gulf of Tonkin or other things that need to be turned into CT hoaxes.

The man is a very clever nutjob.

Dohnjoe

Chrongen wrote: »

Alex Jones makes MILLIONS by muddying the waters.

The only reason he hasn't been shot is because he connects crap like alien abductions with actual possibilities such as the Gulf of Tonkin or other things that need to be turned into CT hoaxes.

The man is a very clever nutjob.

His techniques are similar to most conspiracy theorists. Whether it's 911 or the poisoning of the Skripals. Distorting and twisting information to discredit and hint at conspiracy. The only real difference is he makes money while he does it.

Chrongen

Dohnjoe wrote: »

His techniques are similar to most conspiracy theorists. Whether it's 911 or the poisoning of the Skripals. Distorting and twisting information to discredit and hint at conspiracy. The only real difference is he makes money while he does it.

Kind of like calling someone a holocaust denier then purely for asking a mathematical question.

Realt Dearg Sec

Chrongen wrote: »

Dohnjoe wrote: »

His techniques are similar to most conspiracy theorists. Whether it's 911 or the poisoning of the Skripals. Distorting and twisting information to discredit and hint at conspiracy. The only real difference is he makes money while he does it.

Kind of like calling someone a holocaust denier then purely for asking a mathematical question.

"Hey I'm not saying X, I'm just asking questions here, maybe you just don't like questions!" - every conspiracy theorist ever

Overheal

Chrongen wrote: »

Kind of like calling someone a holocaust denier then purely for asking a mathematical question.

Welp, that’s part of the definition of Holocaust Denial, disputing the agreed upon casualty stats.

Dohnjoe

https://abcnews.go.com/US/families-sandy-hook-victims-fbi-agent-file-defamation/story?id=55379036

More relatives and an FBI agent have filed defamation against Jones

Mutant z

I cant understand anyone who takes Alex Jones as a reliable source.

greenspurs

Dohnjoe wrote: »

His techniques are similar to most conspiracy theorists. Whether it's 911 or the poisoning of the Skripals. Distorting and twisting information to discredit and hint at conspiracy. The only real difference is he makes money while he does it.

You only come into the Conspiracy Theory forum, to denounce all people that think there might be conspiracies happening ??

You must have a simple life, but thanks for the efforts.
Do you go into the Spiritual and Medium forums to broadcast your disbelief at their beliefs also?

:rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

greenspurs wrote: »

You only come into the Conspiracy Theory forum

If people want to post lies/distortions as fact on a public forum, they really shouldn't act surprised to see them exposed as such

Case in point: Alex Jones encouraging followers to harass the families of slain children.

greenspurs

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If people want to post lies/distortions as fact on a public forum, they really shouldn't act surprised to see them exposed as such

Case in point: Alex Jones encouraging followers to harass the families of slain children.

So you don't deny it ?
You are either a troll then, or you feel so sure that there are no such thing as Conspiracies that you will argue in all threads against those that do ?

Not much of a life really , there are so many better things to do with your time !!

Dohnjoe

greenspurs wrote: »

You are either a troll then, or you feel so sure that there are no such thing as Conspiracies

Conspiracies happen on a daily basis. Scandals, sleaze, corruption, cover-ups and so on. Plenty of them are true.

They bear no relation to badly made-up and false conspiracies, many of which end up here. Posing as fact.

greenspurs

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Conspiracies happen on a daily basis. Scandals, sleaze, corruption, cover-ups and so on. Plenty of them are true.

They bear no relation to badly made-up and false conspiracies, many of which end up here. Posing as fact.

And you feel you have to come on here and expose them ?
I don't think anyone (except you maybe) take any of the theories posted on here as "fact" ......
They are just theories and posters take on what they 'think' happened or what didn't happen ...
That's my opinion anyway.
But feel free to try prove everyone else is wrong, and that you are right. :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

greenspurs wrote: »

I don't think anyone (except you maybe) take any of the theories posted on here as "fact" ......

The problem is that they do. The real problem is when they act on it. Like the subject of this thread demonstrates.

Dohnjoe

Youtube just pulled the plug on his channel. Spotify, Facebook, and Itunes also dropped some (or all) of his content

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Youtube just pulled the plug on his channel. Spotify, Facebook, and Itunes also dropped some (or all) of his content

I can't argue against this his terrible and should be punished for upsetting families like this. There better more educated people doing conspiracy podcasts on the internet anyway listen to them. How can anyone listen to him rant on about demons and blood sucking vampires daily is beyond me?

Tony EH

Jones is a prime case of someone's act going too far and his Sandyhook nonsense was just too much for too many people to gloss over.

Personally, I couldn't care less if he's on air of off it. It means nothing to me. But, it's nothing short of hilarious to read all the junk that's being spouted by utter gobshites about this. The YouTube comments section is an appalling vista at the best of times, but by christ, this has brought out the clowns in force. Supposedly, it's "the left" that's done this and it's an example of "liberals" censoring free speech and whatnot.

What absolute bollocks.

YouTube, Spotify and Facebook aren't "the left". They're private businesses and private businesses make business decisions based on finance. That finance was under threat, as other companies were refusing to do deals with the above companies because of Jones and therefore, revenue deals were in danger of drying up.

If anything, this is a perfect example of the free market in action. That same free market that those on the right claim love so much. It's a source of much humour, now, to see so called "rightwingers" calling for government intervention on this most pressing matter. :pac:

In any case, at the end of the day, if anyone really wants to listen to Alex Jones shitetalk, they just have to log onto Infowars.

Bish, bash, bosh...done.

Hector Bellend

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Don't know if I can post this because it's not a conspiracy, but it is related

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html

Parents of children who were killed in the Sandy Hook shooting are suing Jones for defamation because he has been repeatedly claiming on air that the shooting was a hoax, that relatives were "in on it" and so on

Nonsense can wash in an echo chamber, but it quickly falls apart in a court case. Hope they clean him out.

If he somehow manages to win this case,and I'm just throwing this out there, how can we legitimately believe anything ever reported in the mainstream media again?

Dohnjoe

It doesn't seem like he has much of a case, perhaps he could win on a technicality. If somehow he won outright - well it would prob just be a step backwards for those type of defamation cases. I am not sure how the case relates to global journalism as a whole - he isn't a journalist, he's a talk show host/"performance artist"

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It doesn't seem like he has much of a case, perhaps he could win on a technicality. If somehow he won outright - well it would prob just be a step backwards for those type of defamation cases. I am not sure how the case relates to global journalism as a whole - he isn't a journalist, he's a talk show host/"performance artist"

I think the implication is that if he isn't done for defamation, then it must mean that he was telling the truth and these people are actually crisis actors.

Of course should he be guilty, then it's a ploy by the shadowy They.
Either outcome will obviously point to a conspiracy and not to the idea of him being a snakeoil salesman who is responsible for the families of shooting victims being harassed so he could make a fast buck...

Tony EH

King Mob wrote: »

I think the implication is that if he isn't done for defamation, then it must mean that he was telling the truth and these people are actually crisis actors.

It won't be as simple as that. Jones could reasonably claim that it was part of his "act", that his shtick was fair play and he can't be held responsible for what other people do.

It could end up with him getting a slap on the wrist and told to modify his "act". Plus, he has already rolled back on his Sandy Hook gibberish, so he's contrite to a degree. Or, at least, seemingly so.

I've known of Alex Jones for a long time. I first saw him with Jon Ronson 20 years ago on Channel 4, when he was in his 20's and doing a radio broadcast from his bedroom. We're talking about a two decade professional with a huge number of miles in this kind of territory under his belt. I thought he was a joke then and he's still a joke. But, he's a joke with millions in the bank and a huge and ridiculously loyal following. This following is based on the fact that sometimes he reports on things that are factual, like his report on the strange goings on at Bohemian Grove.

The problem, however, with Jones is that he always goes on to embellish any kernel of truth - such as the strange goings on at Bohemian Grove - with his own outlandish claims - like child sacrifices at Bohemian Grove - and destroys any minimal credibility he may have had. He's also scattershot, in that he has no discriminatory aim. Everything is a conspiracy, and if it's not, he'll make it one. This is because he has to in order to keep his (now multi-million dollar) business going. He has a weekly show "exposing" conspiracies, when there aren't enough actual conspiracies to fill such a schedule. This means that inevitably he has to dig deeper and deeper into the absurdity barrel to get something that's in his mind worth talking about on his show.

This is where Jones becomes dangerous, as his brand of act can and does influence people to a very real degree. People are willing to believe just about anything he says, because he can get it right some of the time. But, Jones is the proverbial stopped clock in human form.

In saying that, I believe Jones has his place and in the interests of free speech. And while I understand why YouTube et al did what they did. I think it was probably a bad move. But, it's a move they are free to make as private companies whose bottom line is their bottom line. Still, Jones needs to learn (and he might learn the hard way now) to reign his neck in. When you start making up stuff about pizza pedos and crisis actors, you've crossed a line. Not only that, you bring a lot of impressionable minds across that line with you.

Hector Bellend

Mutant z wrote: »

I cant understand anyone who takes Alex Jones as a reliable source.

You could make that case against hundreds of sources and not all of them are conspiracy theorists.

martingriff

Tony EH wrote: »

It won't be as simple as that. Jones could reasonably claim that it was part of his "act", that his shtick was fair play and he can't be held responsible for what other people do.

It could end up with him getting a slap on the wrist and told to modify his "act". Plus, he has already rolled back on his Sandy Hook gibberish, so he's contrite to a degree. Or, at least, seemingly so.

I've known of Alex Jones for a long time. I first saw him with Jon Ronson 20 years ago on Channel 4, when he was in his 20's and doing a radio broadcast from his bedroom. We're talking about a two decade professional with a huge number of miles in this kind of territory under his belt. I thought he was a joke then and he's still a joke. But, he's a joke with millions in the bank and a huge and ridiculously loyal following. This following is based on the fact that sometimes he reports on things that are factual, like his report on the strange goings on at Bohemian Grove.

The problem, however, with Jones is that he always goes on to embellish any kernel of truth - such as the strange goings on at Bohemian Grove - with his own outlandish claims - like child sacrifices at Bohemian Grove - and destroys any minimal credibility he may have had. He's also scattershot, in that he has no discriminatory aim. Everything is a conspiracy, and if it's not, he'll make it one. This is because he has to in order to keep his (now multi-million dollar) business going. He has a weekly show "exposing" conspiracies, when there aren't enough actual conspiracies to fill such a schedule. This means that inevitably he has to dig deeper and deeper into the absurdity barrel to get something that's in his mind worth talking about on his show.

This is where Jones becomes dangerous, as his brand of act can and does influence people to a very real degree. People are willing to believe just about anything he says, because he can get it right some of the time. But, Jones is the proverbial stopped clock in human form.

In saying that, I believe Jones has his place and in the interests of free speech. And while I understand why YouTube et al did what they did. I think it was probably a bad move. But, it's a move they are free to make as private companies whose bottom line is their bottom line. Still, Jones needs to learn (and he might learn the hard way now) to reign his neck in. When you start making up stuff about pizza pedos and crisis actors, you've crossed a line. Not only that, you bring a lot of impressionable minds across that line with you.

So I could go into a place yell FIRE or something worse by pointing to a person and if anything happen I will just say that and see how far I get

Tony EH

That's not even remotely near the point made.

martingriff

Tony EH wrote: »

That's not even remotely near the point made.

To me it was. The bit bolded was he can go I can't be responsible for what I say and how people take it up. That is bull of the highest order

Tony EH

It isn't, I'm afraid. American law won't hold you responsible for other people's actions. Into the bargain, Jones can say that the people harassing the parents of Sandyhook, were taking his words out of context and that he never intended for his words to be used in such a manner. He could even go further and claim that his act was "art", should his lawyer advise.

Such a position can be upheld in a court, if one can prove that no malice was intended.

You simplistic "yelling fire" analogy doesn't really apply here and in any case would come down to two junctures. Whether the person doing the yelling actually believed there was a fire, or whether they did it for malicious purposes.

Either way, both situations would have to be proven and where innocence is presumed, as it should be in all court cases, a judge would be likely to err on the side of honest mistake.

If things get too hot for Jones, I could easily see him trying that defence in court and trying to worm his way out of the situation he's in.

martingriff

Tony EH wrote: »

It isn't, I'm afraid. American law won't hold you responsible for other people's actions. Into the bargain, Jones can say that the people harassing the parents of Sandyhook, were taking his words out of context and that he never intended for his words to be used in such a manner. He could even go further and claim that his act was "art", should his lawyer advise.

Such a position can be upheld in a court, if one can prove that no malice was intended.

You simplistic "yelling fire" analogy doesn't really apply here and in any case would come down to two junctures. Whether the person doing the yelling actually believed there was a fire, or whether they did it for malicious purposes.

Either way, both situations would have to be proven and where innocence is presumed, as it should be in all court cases, a judge would be likely to err on the side of honest mistake.

If things get too hot for Jones, I could easily see him trying that defence in court and trying to worm his way out of the situation he's in.

We will see but that bull in my estimation

Dohnjoe

Yeah I agree, taking the view that it's an "act" means that his audience should be privvy to that or that it should be obvious (it wasn't) - and at no point in his career has he ever personally laid claim that it was an act (whatever about his attorney)

A lawyer would demolish that argument in seconds in court

It would be the equivalent of David Irving turning around after x number of decades and claiming his anti-Semitic Holocaust denial was really just an "act" and "lol people should have known, it's just a prank bro"

Doesn't wash

Tony EH

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah I agree, taking the view that it's an "act" means that his audience should be privvy to that or that it should be obvious (it wasn't) - and at no point in his career has he ever personally laid claim that it was an act (whatever about his attorney)

A lawyer would demolish that argument in seconds in court

It would be the equivalent of David Irving turning around after x number of decades and claiming his anti-Semitic Holocaust denial was really just an "act" and "lol people should have known, it's just a prank bro"

Doesn't wash

It doesn't matter whether it "doesn't wash" to us. What matters is if he (or his brief) uses it as a defence in a court. Jones has already stated in a previous case that he is an "act" and part of that act is the angry man on the radio.

It's very possible that he may choose to solidify that statement or grounds for defence if it gets hot under the collar for him in this case.

Whether we think it's "bull" or "doesn't wash" is meaningless. The only thing that matters is whether the judge present accepts it as an honest position.

Dohnjoe

If that is the defense, an "act" would imply innocence (and ignorance) on Jones part of the consequences. Given the time period, it's unlikely any judge would give Jones the benefit on the doubt that he simply didn't know that his followers were reacting to his "act" and harassing the people he identified as actors

So far in the defamation case, he isn't use the "act" defense, he's using the free speech one, aka the constitution defending the rights of fringe speech and they are trying to get the case dismissed on those grounds

dr.fuzzenstein

He won't say it's an act, since he depends on his followers believe that he is a genuine source of information, that's why he's sticking with freedom of speech.
And exactly that will be his downfall.

Dohnjoe

He must be feeling the squeeze now

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/429945-judge-rules-sandy-hook-families-can-depose-alex-jones-in-defamation

gmisk

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He must be feeling the squeeze now

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/429945-judge-rules-sandy-hook-families-can-depose-alex-jones-in-defamation

Sure he will be grand just needs to guzzle all those crappy supplements he pushes and he will be flying!

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He must be feeling the squeeze now

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/429945-judge-rules-sandy-hook-families-can-depose-alex-jones-in-defamation

Have you seen the latest drama? Joe Rogan and Alex Jones are fighting and throwing insults at each other. Joe Rogan recently brought on the Twitter CE0 and Joe according to Alex Jones is now a corporate shill.

Alex is clearly losing his mind go watch his rants on Youtube

Lil Sally Anne Jnr.

Don't see how having an unorthodox opinion about something, even something as serious as this, can qualify as defamation.

Ipso

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. wrote: »

Don't see how having an unorthodox opinion about something, even something as serious as this, can qualify as defamation.

He's accusing them of being involved a cover up which is supposedly an attempt to restrict peoples right, amongst other things.
All going well, he ends up living out of a dumpster after this.

Dohnjoe

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. wrote: »

Don't see how having an unorthodox opinion about something, even something as serious as this, can qualify as defamation.

It's much more than an "unorthodox opinion" unfortunately. From the article:

"Mark Barden, a plaintiff in the case whose son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting, released a statement Wednesday supporting Bellis's ruling.

“For years, Alex Jones and his co-conspirators have turned the unthinkable loss of our sweet little Daniel and of so many others into advertising dollars and fundraising appeals. It is far beyond time that he be held accountable for the pain his false narratives have caused so many and today’s ruling brings us one step closer to doing that.”"

Death threats, harassment. Went on for years under Jones's encouragement.

"AUSTIN, Tex. — In the five years since Noah Pozner was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., death threats and online harassment have forced his parents, Veronique De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner, to relocate seven times. They now live in a high-security community hundreds of miles from where their 6-year-old is buried.

“I would love to go see my son’s grave and I don’t get to do that, but we made the right decision,” Ms. De La Rosa said in a recent interview. Each time they have moved, online fabulists stalking the family have published their whereabouts."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/alex-jones-defamation-suit-sandy-hook.html