Alex Jones Sued by Sandy Hook Parents

[Trotsky]

Can someone help me with this? I don't understand how litigious American society is - how is this even a thing? Yes he's a colossal asshole for saying these things but how do people think they are just going to bankrupt him?

They are private citizens, not (a) public officials (who get basically no protection for defamation) or (b) public figures (who, if they injected themselves into the public sphere, may get lesser protection). As private citizens, they have privacy interests, emotional interests, personal economic interests, and most of all social reputational interest that are shielded from defamation.

These people, or at least most of them, did absolutely nothing to thrust themselves into the spotlight (unlike someone like, say, David Hogg who affirmatively hit the lecture circuit after being the victim of a tragedy). They were thrust into the spotlight by a guy murdering their children.

They have a clear case. Alex Jones' defense, as @Fedorable touched upon, will be that he had a "reasonable belief" that the statements were true and that there were grounds for that reasonable belief. The standard will be whether a reasonable person under reasonable circumstances would believe the statements given their subjective impression of the objective grounds presented to them.


I hope that helps. And I hope they nail this mother fucker to the wall.

I wouldn't mind seeing Alex Jones ruined, but is this lawsuit just because their feelings were hurt?

I didn't see an IIED claim in there, which wouldn't stick anyways.

The lawsuit is primarily, I would wager, that their reputations were hurt. You know, some of the people that thought they were hired actors merely acting like their kid was murdered apparently took that as somewhat of a blight on their character.

 

[DC23]

Will they be going after Eddie Bravo next?

 

[Neph]

They are private citizens, not (a) public officials (who get basically no protection for defamation) or (b) public figures (who, if they injected themselves into the public sphere, may get lesser protection). As private citizens, they have privacy interests, emotional interests, personal economic interests, and most of all social reputational interest that are shielded from defamation.

These people, or at least most of them, did absolutely nothing to thrust themselves into the spotlight (unlike someone like, say, David Hogg who affirmatively hit the lecture circuit after being the victim of a tragedy). They were thrust into the spotlight by a guy murdering their children.

They have a clear case. Alex Jones' defense, as @Fedorable touched upon, will be that he had a "reasonable belief" that the statements were true and that there were grounds for that reasonable belief. The standard will be whether a reasonable person under reasonable circumstances would believe the statements given their subjective impression of the objective grounds presented to them.


I hope that helps. And I hope they nail this mother fucker to the wall.

Thanks, I understand what you have said I just don't agree with it. Maybe a different culture of litigation here.

 

[Throttlehead]

Well, that’s mostly because Bill Clinton is a rapist.


I’ve never watched a single episode? Of his program. Specifically because of what he did with sandy hook (probably the first time I’d ever heard of him).


Lastly, anyone with more than a peanut size brain has to realize he’s playing a parody character. I would normally find that amusing, however I find his using sandy hook as material highly distasteful.

Its not just distasteful, its more than that, its enough to get hi sued.

Just admit it Bob, you were repeating exactly what Jones asking for at the time Jones was asking for it. Is it coincidence? If so, you should go heavy on the lottery tickets. As far as I know Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape, but he was accused on many affairs while married.....sound familiar? Wait till the next election and they fill a room full of porn stars, playmates, maids and daughters...Trump the con man wont know what to say other than his usual lies.

 

[Trotsky]

Thanks, I understand what you have said I just don't agree with it. Maybe a different culture of litigation here.

What do you not agree with?

 

[Ophydian]

Can you provide documentation of these Alex Jones followers harassing and threatening these parents?

I mean I get it, it’s 2018 and everybody is suing everybody for getting their feelings hurt and this fits in with your agenda and all but it’s ridiculous.

Here I’ll shut down your arguement once and for all. Alex Jones profited by defaming and slandering these people.

 

[Delmrus]

You’re just mad that I’m not jumping on the virtue cignaling bullshit train with you. Lol.

Or, your're just a nutjob who probably believes these conspiracies. Otherwise you wouldn't be whining about it.

 

[Neph]

What do you not agree with?

As private citizens, they have privacy interests, emotional interests, personal economic interests, and most of all social reputational interest that are shielded from defamation.

That's the list you gave me about what should be protected from them.

Privacy interests - does anyone here know the names of any victims as a result of Alex Jones? Were there any names that were otherwise not able to be discovered were it not for him?

Personal Economic Interests - have any of the people he discussed lost an ability to be hired, to continue their present occupation, or lost a job?

Social Reputation - does anyone take Alex Jones seriously enough that their personal reputation has actually been damaged, and if so in what material way? What is his audience share that would interact with families of the victims and is he responsible for their behaviour?

I just don't think any of this has happened. I've made a few comments throughout this thread that you can refer back to for my thoughts, for example:

If you make up a lie that costs someone their job and livelihood then you should be required to pay for those damages and issue statements in at least the same scope to your audience to correct yourself. Ie: If you are a newspaper and you falsely claim someone is a child molester on page 2 of your newspaper, the retraction should be at least the same size as the article and at least on page two.

What % of people, when they hear a story that the children didn't even exist and the whole thing is a bunch of actors, are actually persuaded by the story? Out of the people who are persuaded by what must be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life, how many of those will actually cause a financial imposition upon the families?

I don't know... it just seems like some kind of revenge fantasy against him. Yes, he's a dickhead of the highest order and his comments are incredibly insensitive, but suing him for millions? No.

 

[bobgeese]

Its not just distasteful, its more than that, its enough to get hi sued.

Just admit it Bob, you were repeating exactly what Jones asking for at the time Jones was asking for it. Is it coincidence? If so, you should go heavy on the lottery tickets. As far as I know Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape, but he was accused on many affairs while married.....sound familiar? Wait till the next election and they fill a room full of porn stars, playmates, maids and daughters...Trump the con man wont know what to say other than his usual lies.

That couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that Bill was expected to have come back into the White House as the first man? No, that just makes entirely too much sense.

Also, you’re aware Bill settled for sexual assault, right???

Lastly, you have to remember, there’s a shit ton of young voters who have no clue about Bills history of sexual assault. I am glad to have opened a few of their eyes before last election. There’s nothing like realizing the party who pretends to cares about women has been covering up the sexual assault of multiple women for decades.


Trump banging attractive women won’t cost him a single vote, as fat jealous women already vote for the democrats.

But it’s promising you’re acknowledging Trump will serve his full term. There’s hope for you after all...

 

[Quequeg]

The usual suspects dishonestly defending the indefensible, what a surprise.

 

[ralphc1]

I wouldn't mind seeing Alex Jones ruined, but is this lawsuit just because their feelings were hurt?

In case you haven't read the thread;
li·bel
ˈlībəl/
noun
noun: libel; plural noun: libels

1. 1.
   Law
   a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
   synonyms: defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering;More
   aspersions, denigration, vilification, disparagement, derogation, insult, slander, malicious gossip;
   lie, slur, smear, untruth, false report;
   informalmudslinging, bad-mouthing
   "she sued two newspapers for libel"
   • the action or crime of publishing a false statement about a person.
     "a councilor who sued two national newspapers for libel"
   • a false and malicious statement about a person.
   • a thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.
2. 2.
   (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.

verb
verb: libel; 3rd person present: libels; past tense: libelled; past participle: libelled; gerund or present participle: libelling; past tense: libeled; past participle: libeled; gerund or present participle: libeling

1. 1.
   Law
   defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
   "she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
   synonyms: defame, malign, slander, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, drag someone's name through the mud, besmirch, tarnish, taint, tell lies about, stain, impugn someone's character/integrity, vilify, denigrate, disparage, run down, stigmatize, discredit, slur;More
   informaldis, bad-mouth;
   formalderogate, calumniate
   "she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
   • make a false and malicious statement about.
2. 2.
   (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) bring a suit against (someone).

Origin

Middle English (in the general sense ‘a document, a written statement’): via Old French from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber ‘book.’
Translate libel to
Use over time for: libel

 

[ralphc1]

Do they have to prove he didn't believe what he said? and provide damage to their reputations?

All they have to prove is that he made false statements.

 

[SaiWa]

I hope Alex Jones goes BROKE upon the conclusion of this affair...

 

[BudKing8806]

Alex Jones should not have said that the shooting was a false flag. That was the wrong thing to do.

 

[HereticBD]

Jones is a bag of shit, and this is probably the lowest he's ever sunk, but I doubt he loses this lawsuit.

 

[JosephDredd]

Poor Alex is feeling defamed by defamation lawsuits.

“You’re allowed to question things in America, that’s not defamation,” Jones said Wednesday on his InfoWars broadcast. “But what is defamation is to file lawsuits that say I said things I didn’t say, and then put me and my whole family through the ringer and lie about us and hold us up against dead children and say basically we hate their families, we hate the children.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...es-says-he-s-been-defamed-by-defamation-suits

 

[Trotsky]

Poor Alex is feeling defamed by defamation lawsuits.




https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...es-says-he-s-been-defamed-by-defamation-suits

"...put me and my whole family through the wringer."

Holy fucking shit, this guy is some special combination of shameless and stupid. Might as well have said "put me and all the kids that I still have because they weren't fake murdered through the wringer."

 

[ultramanhyata]

What bothers me is that hiring a whole lot of crisis actors and make up fake children that got shot seems like a lot more work than just hiring a madman to kill children at a school?

It may seem sinister, but wouldn't that make a lot more sense for the government to do if they really wanted a Sandy Hook like event?

There is rigorous debate between the Sandy Hook CT factions on this point. The staged event side thinks the Manchurian candidate side is crazy. And vice versa.

It's sort of like the debate between the CT'ers who think the moon landing was faked and the ones who think our astronauts discovered alien bases when they went to the moon.

 

[UL]

This was one of the more disgusting conspiracy theories I'm aware of.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/...nes-sandy-hook.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

he needs to come out and tell everyone he is playing a character

 

[curryjunkie]

"...put me and my whole family through the wringer."
this cunts gonna be targeted sooner or later like pharma douche, it may be tax fraud or something, but sooner or later hes gonna do time, and thats the day i open the jameson 18 yr old reserve.