Sandy Hook Parents of Slain Children Sue Alex Jones for Defamation

[Anonymous]

What is wrong with people that anyone would find Alex Jones in the right?

Do people not have a moral compass?

I don't know how some of you sleep at night.

[Anonymous]

Can the judge/jury force him to close his media empire, given it was the vehicle of the crimes?

Also, there's still some work to be done to extirpate his hidden wealth and make him poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of Alex Jones, however reminded of this famous quote by English author Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1905;

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The first amendment wasn't allowed to be used by the defense in this trial.

He told lies and inflicted harm. Thus, civil damages.

The first amendment does not have limits.

Not complicated.

What lies?

Have you been living under a rock?

He claimed that Sandy Hook massacre never happened.
He claimed that the families we saw in the news were hired actors, and it was all a plot to take away people's guns.

To call them lies, he would have to know what he said was untrue. One can be incorrect without lying.

If he had cooperated with the multiple trials he could have argued this, but he didn’t.

I'm sure we will impose billion dollar fines on the regular for people that don't cooperate.

[Anonymous]

I wish a group of plaintiffs would request the equitable remedy of having him enjoined from broadcasting unless he is willing to use his platform for a widespread and continued retraction and mea culpa.

If anyone ever deserved it, it is him. He is continuing to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. If a lawyer can be permanently disbarred for egregious conduct, why can't a broadcaster found liable for defamation be treated similarly. It's not like he's expressed remorse or a willingness to broadcast widespread retractions and try to repair the harm he has caused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of Alex Jones, however reminded of this famous quote by English author Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1905;

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The first amendment wasn't allowed to be used by the defense in this trial.

He told lies and inflicted harm. Thus, civil damages.

The first amendment does not have limits.

Not complicated.

What lies?

Have you been living under a rock?

He claimed that Sandy Hook massacre never happened.
He claimed that the families we saw in the news were hired actors, and it was all a plot to take away people's guns.

To call them lies, he would have to know what he said was untrue. One can be incorrect without lying.

If he had cooperated with the multiple trials he could have argued this, but he didn’t.

I'm sure we will impose billion dollar fines on the regular for people that don't cooperate.

He was found liable because he failed to cooperate, or to mount adequate defense. The fines were imposed separately, by a jury of his peers. If he wanted to avoid the latter, he could have actually followed the rules and mounted an adequate defense in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of Alex Jones, however reminded of this famous quote by English author Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1905;

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The first amendment wasn't allowed to be used by the defense in this trial.

He told lies and inflicted harm. Thus, civil damages.

The first amendment does not have limits.

Not complicated.

What lies?

Have you been living under a rock?

He claimed that Sandy Hook massacre never happened.
He claimed that the families we saw in the news were hired actors, and it was all a plot to take away people's guns.

To call them lies, he would have to know what he said was untrue. One can be incorrect without lying.

If he had cooperated with the multiple trials he could have argued this, but he didn’t.

I'm sure we will impose billion dollar fines on the regular for people that don't cooperate.

The award set by the jury was commensurate with the amount of harm done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish a group of plaintiffs would request the equitable remedy of having him enjoined from broadcasting unless he is willing to use his platform for a widespread and continued retraction and mea culpa.

If anyone ever deserved it, it is him. He is continuing to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. If a lawyer can be permanently disbarred for egregious conduct, why can't a broadcaster found liable for defamation be treated similarly. It's not like he's expressed remorse or a willingness to broadcast widespread retractions and try to repair the harm he has caused.

most sane words i've read in days

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish a group of plaintiffs would request the equitable remedy of having him enjoined from broadcasting unless he is willing to use his platform for a widespread and continued retraction and mea culpa.

If anyone ever deserved it, it is him. He is continuing to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. If a lawyer can be permanently disbarred for egregious conduct, why can't a broadcaster found liable for defamation be treated similarly. It's not like he's expressed remorse or a willingness to broadcast widespread retractions and try to repair the harm he has caused.

How likely is this?

I certainly hope that happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will he actually pay?

This is my question. Hasn’t he already put a few of his businesses into bankruptcy in anticipation of this so he doesn’t need to oay?

He's filing for bankruptcy, but none of the filings had been approved yet. In fact, in one case, the judge held the ruling pending the outcome of his civil trials to ensure that he could not use the bankruptcy to protect assets.

The courts are not going to allow him to hide assets via bankruptcy. Now the issue is that he's also moved assets off-shore and it will be up to the courts to find a way to truly discover all of his hidden assets to ensure that the victims are appropriately compensated and that this perpetrator cannot protect his assets from his penalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will he actually pay?

This is my question. Hasn’t he already put a few of his businesses into bankruptcy in anticipation of this so he doesn’t need to oay?

He's filing for bankruptcy, but none of the filings had been approved yet. In fact, in one case, the judge held the ruling pending the outcome of his civil trials to ensure that he could not use the bankruptcy to protect assets.

The courts are not going to allow him to hide assets via bankruptcy. Now the issue is that he's also moved assets off-shore and it will be up to the courts to find a way to truly discover all of his hidden assets to ensure that the victims are appropriately compensated and that this perpetrator cannot protect his assets from his penalty.

Hopefully, investigative journalists are already on it.

[Anonymous]

Heh.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

He is evil incarnate.

[Anonymous]

People like Alex Jones confuse me. I understand why bank robbers rob banks. I truly do not understand what motivates him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Such a piece of good news in the middle of a bad few weeks.

I admire the Sandy Hook families for their grit.