Parents of Sandy Hook victims suing Alex Jones for defamation

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.

Tony EH wrote: »

That's not even remotely near the point made.

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.