Why isn't Alex Jones protected by 1st Amendment?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Inquistor24
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
He claimed a shooting was fake. So what? This entire thing seems to be an exercise by the corporate media to see if they can themselves break the amendment that protects their own rights (so that they can dominate growing/alternative media outlets with tyrannical lawsuits)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58771927

What is the big deal about claiming that this shooting was false? How many other things did he claim was false? What is so special about this particular event? It makes no sense. He even retracts his statements, and this legal case continues? I don't understand it. It seems entirely emotional and irrational.
0
Joleee
Badges: 19
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
he lost the lawsuits by default because he failed to provide requested information to the court, ie he wasn't cooperating with the rules of discovery.

'The defendants, including Mr. Jones and his digital channel, Infowars, had made “persistent discovery abuses” by failing to turn over documents as required and by failing to carry out other obligations required by the court, Judge Guerra Gamble wrote in the filings.'

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/u...andy-hook.html

to answer the thread title fyi the first amendment does not absolutely protect someone from facing a defamation lawsuit (defamation being when the defendant makes a false statement which harms the reputation of the claimant). in said lawsuit, if the defendant can prove the statement they made was true, the defamation case ends there. obviously tho Alex Jones couldn't do so and tried to get away with it by refusing to produce the required documents.
1
brjf
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
Huh?
0
HansLuben
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
The 1st amendment protects you against the government, not private individuals/companies.
1
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
That amendment protects you from the GOVNMENT, not business interests, nor the public and grieving families your pal was horrifically slandering.
3
caravaggio2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
Many parents suffered a ton of abuse because of what he said and produced. When you consider what they had already been through , it must have been awful
0
!Capercaillie
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
While others have already addressed this, you could have answered the question yourself by actually reading the 1st amendment.

Alex Jones a fine example of people who fail to grasp that while you are free to say what you want, you are not free from how other people respond to your verbal diarrhoea. I know his supporters will see him as a victim but he is entirely responsible for his situation.
1
Inquistor24
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#8
At the end of the day he is facing legal action for making statements that are false (I mean you tend you face legal action when things are REALLY false that you say, so what he said is REALLY false). The fact you all can't see this and think he has defamed people is ridiculous. The families had no reputation to shatter. Who wants to get famous from the death of their child? This whole thing stinks and I'm on the side of Alex.
Last edited by Inquistor24; 2 weeks ago
1
Inquistor24
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#9
On the case of these "private companies" who form a conglomerate called corporate media (who even our governments fear), I think you are wrong to say that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect us from them. They are de facto our government.
0
Inquistor24
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by caravaggio2)
Many parents suffered a ton of abuse because of what he said and produced. When you consider what they had already been through , it must have been awful
Literally who cares? If they just lost a child do you think they would care what a bunch of infowars zombies say? The whole thing stinks.
1
caravaggio2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
They had death threats, abusive phone calls and these gimps turning up outside their homes harassing them, so yes, I think I would care and want somebody to take responsibility for piling more grief on my family at a time like that.
0
Inquistor24
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by caravaggio2)
They had death threats, abusive phone calls and these gimps turning up outside their homes harassing them, so yes, I think I would care and want somebody to take responsibility for piling more grief on my family at a time like that.
If you had lost a child you would not be crying or doing lawsuits you would be mourning or getting some kind of revenge not against some conspiracy theorist this is a media stunt and you are just a docile and dormant agent of the system.
0
caravaggio2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Inquistor24)
If you had lost a child you would not be crying or doing lawsuits you would be mourning or getting some kind of revenge not against some conspiracy theorist this is a media stunt and you are just a docile and dormant agent of the system.
Sorry, I have just realised you bought the timeshare. Enjoy your super energy tablets. Cheerio.
0
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Inquistor24)
If you had lost a child you would not be crying or doing lawsuits you would be mourning or getting some kind of revenge not against some conspiracy theorist this is a media stunt and you are just a docile and dormant agent of the system.
What would you know about it?

I'd point out how offensive your words are, but I assume that's your only motivation.
1
Joleee
Badges: 19
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by HansLuben)
The 1st amendment protects you against the government, not private individuals/companies.
(Original post by StriderHort)
That amendment protects you from the GOVNMENT, not business interests, nor the public and grieving families your pal was horrifically slandering.
yes but i'm afraid you are confusing points of law here tho. whilst indeed a private company/individual doesn't have a duty to protect free speech rights and the first amendment, that isn't the legal issue here and the first amendment is indeed relevant in a defamation case :yep:

'The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law. The press exists in large part to report on issues of public concern. However, individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character. The clash between the two rights can lead to expensive litigation, million-dollar jury verdicts and negative public views of the press.'

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/997/libel-and-slander#:~:text=Defamation%20is%20a%20tort%20that,fact%20that%20harm%20another's%20reputation.&text=The%20First%20Amendment%20rights%20of,on%20issues%20of%20public%20concern.

so in this case, Alex Jones/Infowars would have been fighting for their legal right to say XYZ, but in a defamation suit you the defendant have to prove what you said/wrote was true because of the harm false statements can cause. Alex Jones did not do that; see the New York Times link i posted in comment #2.
0
Inquistor24
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Joleee)
yes but i'm afraid you are confusing points of law here tho. whilst indeed a private company/individual doesn't have a duty to protect free speech rights and the first amendment, that isn't the legal issue here and the first amendment is indeed relevant in a defamation case :yep:

'The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law. The press exists in large part to report on issues of public concern. However, individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character. The clash between the two rights can lead to expensive litigation, million-dollar jury verdicts and negative public views of the press.'

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/997/libel-and-slander#:~:text=Defamation%20is%20a%20tort%20that,fact%20that%20harm%20another's%20reputation.&text=The%20First%20Amendment%20rights%20of,on%20issues%20of%20public%20concern.

so in this case, Alex Jones/Infowars would have been fighting for their legal right to say XYZ, but in a defamation suit you the defendant have to prove what you said/wrote was true because of the harm false statements can cause. Alex Jones did not do that; see the New York Times link i posted in comment #2.
The idea that a family can be defamed out of the glory(?) of having their children murdered and names put in the papers is quite disgusting and I'm sure is going to bring God's wrath to America.
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
'alternative' thats funny, alternative implies theres some valid news being propagated from a different angle, that is quite clearly not the case with this crackpot and the morons who listen to his bile.
He spreads malicious lies that seek top cause harm, that is not covered by 'free speech'. As anyone with half a brain knows, free speech has its limits and always has. You cant walk into an airport and shout bomb and claim 'free speech' just like this fatuous piece of garbage shouldnt be allowed to torment people whose children were slaughtered.
If anything, him and those who defend him are the ones denigrating freedom of speech byu trying to abuse it. You know what happens to rights thatre abused? You lose them. Every child knows this so why dont the adults who follow this charlatan (the fact he admitted hes one and just plays to his audience of morons should say a lot) then again, i think we all know the answer here :rolleyes:
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by StriderHort)
What would you know about it?

I'd point out how offensive your words are, but I assume that's your only motivation.
This ilk really do make ones gorge rise. Mocking parents whove lost their children for, what one can only assume, is some disgusting sexual thrill. If ever there was a case for medieval justice, such as removing someones vocal chords, well. Jones and his cult followers (or sheeple, as they like to be known) are the case in point.
1
Inquistor24
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Napp)
'alternative' thats funny, alternative implies theres some valid news being propagated from a different angle, that is quite clearly not the case with this crackpot and the morons who listen to his bile.
He spreads malicious lies that seek top cause harm, that is not covered by 'free speech'. As anyone with half a brain knows, free speech has its limits and always has. You cant walk into an airport and shout bomb and claim 'free speech' just like this fatuous piece of garbage shouldnt be allowed to torment people whose children were slaughtered.
If anything, him and those who defend him are the ones denigrating freedom of speech byu trying to abuse it. You know what happens to rights thatre abused? You lose them. Every child knows this so why dont the adults who follow this charlatan (the fact he admitted hes one and just plays to his audience of morons should say a lot) then again, i think we all know the answer here :rolleyes:
(Original post by Napp)
This ilk really do make ones gorge rise. Mocking parents whove lost their children for, what one can only assume, is some disgusting sexual thrill. If ever there was a case for medieval justice, such as removing someones vocal chords, well. Jones and his cult followers (or sheeple, as they like to be known) are the case in point.
you guys know he was telling people about Epstein's island years before it went mainstream?
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Inquistor24)
you guys know he was telling people about Epstein's island years before it went mainstream?
And...?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (120)
57.97%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (23)
11.11%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (25)
12.08%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (17)
8.21%
I haven't started researching yet (11)
5.31%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (11)
5.31%

Watched Threads

View All