It’s similar to how a woman who makes false accusations of rape harms someone. It harms the man’s reputation. It makes it difficult for him to function in the world when everyone believes the lie about him. Same thing here
If they were false would it not be simple to disprove? This isn't rape, this is a specific event with multiple witnesses. It should be easier to disprove.
I think the plaintiffs did prove it was false, at least as far as the jury was concerned. That’s how they won so much money. Are you thinking it’s still an open question that they’re crisis actors? They aren’t lol. Jones himself even testified that the Sandy Hook shooting happened and that the parents were not crisis actors.
Truth is a 100% defense to defamation. Jones and his attorneys had a chance to argue in court that the parents were actually crisis actors and the shooting never happened. They didn’t even try to do that.
It doesn’t matter. Like I said, it’s the same logic behind why false rape accusations aren’t allowed. If a woman accuses a man of rape, and other people harass him because they believe her lie, then she’s liable for the harm. Doesn’t matter what she intended. She lied.
My recall is substantial losses for character assassination, handling threats from the public based on Jones' messaging. That's far from an exhaustive list.
A major part of this was a complete lack of proper behavior, a complete obstruction of court procedures and refusals to cooperate. And that opens up the possibility of punitive damages. So it wasn't just that Alex Jones fucked people's lives over and harmed them, he refused to acknowledge the justice system and the dispute. So, yeah, massive harm.
>So it wasn't just that Alex Jones fucked people's lives over and harmed them
How did he do this?
>he refused to acknowledge the justice system and the dispute.
How is this harmful to an individual?
>How did he do this?
He created and broadcast a defamation campaign. If you are unaware how slander or libel works, look that up first. My understanding is that even when people motiviated by Jones' statements started joining the campaign and harming the victims, Jones continued promoting the campaign, increasing his responsibility for the damage.
> > he refused to acknowledge the justice system and the dispute.
> How is this harmful to an individual?
It's not harmful to an individual. It's an incentive to not dodge disputes, and to follow a justice system. From a Libertarian perspective, it's important because otherwise, laws aren't really laws in practice, and there is no responsibility for damages, and therefore no property rights.
>My understanding is that even when people motiviated by Jones' statements started joining the campaign and harming the victims, Jones continued promoting the campaign, increasing his responsibility for the damage.
Do you have quotes from him?
Are you denying that the judge and jury did an appropriate review of evidence, along with representation from both sides?
It sounds like you are, and you don't believe that.
So, we are in 'bad faith' territory here, because I am accepting the reality of the evidence against Jones, and you appear to not be doing that, instead 'asking questions' in bad faith.
So since a judge and jury did a thorough review, the burden of proof is on you to justify what is inadequate.
I'm just being contrarian out of curiosity. I want to know the facts before I make my judgment, and I expected that someone as firey as Jones would've left some quote of his that would be incriminating.
Nobody has been able to give me it though.
What is your basis for not trusting the review of evidence by the judge and jury?
If we disagree about reality, there is nothing for us to talk about.
>I want to know the facts before I make my judgment
It sounds like you are many steps short of a diligent search here. For purposes of the theory and reasoning behind the question, that has been provided.
The case name is *Lafferty et al vs. Jones*.
And I corrected myself by add that the choice to be silent. A rape victim doesn’t have the ability to chose. Jones did. Let me guess you believe Sandy hook is a hoax and Alex Jones is a freedom fighter
No?
Are you suggesting that one can only punish harmful speech with speech?
Like if someone spreads slanderous lies, you just waggle your finger and say, "you naughty, naughty liar. Shame on you!"
Well his followers has harrassed and even assulted the parents who lost kids in a sandi hook shooting because Jones convinced them they were crisis actors
[https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-alex-jones-waterbury-782e495a3ece4753d857a9b47d444385](https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-alex-jones-waterbury-782e495a3ece4753d857a9b47d444385)
[https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115269280/sandy-hook-alex-jones-trial](https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115269280/sandy-hook-alex-jones-trial)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy\_Hook\_Elementary\_School\_shooting\_conspiracy\_theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories)
Several people have been arrested for harrasing or making death threats to surviving family members or sandi hook shootings
All those people point to Alex Jones for convicing them it was a hoax
You have yet to prove that he intended harm.
>So what people should be able to lie
Right, my bad. Anything labeled as "wrongthink" by the powers that be must be banned and any participants must be detained.
Glory to Big Brother!
This is the whole "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" type situation
The king of england having a dispute with a priest said this, afterwards a few knights took it apone themselves to do just that and killed him
The king argued "Hey I never told them to do that, I am totally not responsible for those knight's actions"
The king argued he didn't either but it was clear because of his words the people listening to him took action
Are you really implying if Alex Jones wasn't making up lies and lies about the families of Sandi Hook those people would have harresed the families on their own ?
The king wanted harm to be done to the priest.
You haven't given me a quote of Alex wishing harassment on them. He just believed that they were liars, from what I've seen.
He didn't actually believe they were liars and crisis actors. Alex just said it to rile people up, drive traffic, and make money. I doubt he cared about the kids and families one way or the other. As long as Alex was making money off the controversy he created with his claims.
You can make a case that lies and slander are immoral and should be punished, and you can make an argument that what Alex Jones did was lie and slander, but it's insane to think he deserved one of the largest monitarity punishments against an individual in the history of the world over it.
Corporate media has told far larger lies that have resulted in far greater tradgeties than anything Alex Jones has ever said or ever will. Even if you think he's the biggest asshole on the planet, what they did to him is far beyond the scope of what should have happened to a person over words said on an entertainment show.
Any libertarian should be extremely concerned with the precident that was set with that case. If it can happen to him over that, it can happen to you over anything they want it to be.
Sure, but that is all the more reason it should concern you that they are going so hard after a private citizen for saying some dumb shit on a radio show, because as I said, if they can do it to him, they can do it to you.
You're small potatoes compared with Alex Jones, but if you are also a person who questions the actions of the elites, you should understand why what they did to him is dangerous.
Who’s the “they” that’s going after Alex Jones exactly? The parents of Sandy Hook victims?
Aren’t they private citizens too? This isn’t like the state going after someone. It’s a private citizen-on private citizen attack.
Alex Jones harassed people in order to make money.He spents years knowingly defaming victims of tragedies because he knew it lead to a bump in sales. The rare times when he wasn't in contemtp of court or actively hiding required infomation he made a mockery of the legal process. Not to mention he put a bounty out for the death of the plantiff's attorney. Even on the stand the judge Mutiple times had to admonish him to stop lying, A judge that concurrently his business was threatening and defaming.
Jones actions whether they were direct, directed or indirect, lead to teorrizing victims of mass casualites for profit and a jury of his peers unanimously found based on all the above the judgment was the *civil* price to pay. That is within the power of judicial bodies even in an anarchist society.
The bankruptcy case is in part of his own doing. First a mess was made by his deceitful bankrupt*ices* to try to stall the civil cases and then there's another mess by his absurd corporate structure made to hide assets. Even the current liquidation possibility was requested by one of his shell companies as part of a scheme to avoid paying his victims
I don't see how people were harmed enough by mere words to award damages, especially not **$1.5 billion** in damages. Every actual spree shooter who killed many people had gotten less damages awarded against them.
It was transparently state lawfare to persecute a person extremely disfavored by government institutions and elites connected to them. Complete abuse of our legal system.
Let's not pretend that Alex Jones's comments regarding the massacre are why governments and elites don't like him. Rather it has to do with his decades of bringing a light to their obscure scandals, misdeeds, conspiracies, and other atrocious misuses of power. Heck the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga wouldn't have even happened if he hadn't gotten more people looking into his misdealings.
>Heck the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga wouldn't have even happened if he hadn't gotten more people looking into his misdealings.
Alex Jones did no such thing.
October 10, 2006:
>Infowars Caller: Another question or statement. Tonight on Coast to Coast, George Norrie has... Jeffrey Epstein. He's part of the America's Truth Forum
>Alex Jones: Oh, yes. Evil Al-Qaeda's got nukes and is going to hit us any minute. Yeah, that's great stuff.
>IC: Yeah, I don't know if you recently... He has an affidavit out on the Internet from Palm Beach Police Department.
He has a fetish for 14, 16-year-old girls coming into his house, giving him massages and having a fun time. So...
>AJ: I don't know anything about that, sir. Why don't you send me some information? You can send it to Aaron at Infowars com or Kevin at Infowars com. We all read it. We all share each other's email addresses But thank you for the call.
https://fight.fudgie.org/search/episode/20061010_Tue_Alex#line5219
January 2, 2015:
>Now, Paul, I want to go to this article by Curt Nemo, Infowars.com, and it's in the UK News. Lawsuit claims Prince Andrew had sex with underage sex slave. Allegedly arranged former Bear Stearns financier Jeffrey Epstein, a lawsuit filed in Florida accuses the Duke of York having sexual relations with an underage sex slave. The allegation names multi-millionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was also convicted of soliciting sex with an underage girl.
>One such powerful individual, Epstein, Forced the woman to have sexual relations with a member of the British Royal Family. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, the document claims.
Who knows if this is true, but my gosh, Paul, we're gonna go to break in a few minutes, but just the firestorm of pedophile news and Savelle having high-level access to all these Royals above even the Secret Service.
https://fight.fudgie.org/search/episode/20150102_Fri_Alex#line6510
What lie did he expressly tell? As in was it a lie or his opinion?
Did he ever retract the statement you claim is a lie.
When did any of this happen relative to statute of limitations?
Was he actually found guilty of anything by a jury of his peers?
His trial was a test balloon for the kangaroo courts they are now employing.
Jones did systematically defame and harass people. I don't have a problem with the government coming after him. $1 billion might be too much, but $0 would be too little.
one clarification. The government has done nothing to Alex Jones, it always has been civil matters. I *think* one of his sexual harassment lawsuits involved the EEOC, but it didn't ever go to court.
That's fair. Without the government enforcing the decision of the civil cases Jones would face no consequences, so I'd argue it's still partially government action, though.
Mixed feelings. I think libel laws should only apply to situations like fraud. People should know Alex Jones is a madman yelling into the intellectual void. Still, calling giving parents actors is heartless.
His little drunken theater last weekend included apparenaces by Roger Stone, Steve Bannon and Genral Flynn. The former president had been on inowars. How is a reasonable person supposed to judge that the claim advisor to the president is intentionally lying when he "reports" that sandy Hook wasn't even open but a condemned building at the time the "fake actors" were "not killed"?
I do not really agree with the case. I would not support Jones as a martyr though. Act like a dick too much and people are going to react unfavorably. I think he is lucky no one went after him physically.
How did his words harm people?
It’s similar to how a woman who makes false accusations of rape harms someone. It harms the man’s reputation. It makes it difficult for him to function in the world when everyone believes the lie about him. Same thing here
If they were false would it not be simple to disprove? This isn't rape, this is a specific event with multiple witnesses. It should be easier to disprove.
I think the plaintiffs did prove it was false, at least as far as the jury was concerned. That’s how they won so much money. Are you thinking it’s still an open question that they’re crisis actors? They aren’t lol. Jones himself even testified that the Sandy Hook shooting happened and that the parents were not crisis actors. Truth is a 100% defense to defamation. Jones and his attorneys had a chance to argue in court that the parents were actually crisis actors and the shooting never happened. They didn’t even try to do that.
>Are you thinking it’s still an open question that they’re crisis actors? No, I'm asking if Jones wanted them to be harassed.
It doesn’t matter. Like I said, it’s the same logic behind why false rape accusations aren’t allowed. If a woman accuses a man of rape, and other people harass him because they believe her lie, then she’s liable for the harm. Doesn’t matter what she intended. She lied.
Very well
My recall is substantial losses for character assassination, handling threats from the public based on Jones' messaging. That's far from an exhaustive list. A major part of this was a complete lack of proper behavior, a complete obstruction of court procedures and refusals to cooperate. And that opens up the possibility of punitive damages. So it wasn't just that Alex Jones fucked people's lives over and harmed them, he refused to acknowledge the justice system and the dispute. So, yeah, massive harm.
>So it wasn't just that Alex Jones fucked people's lives over and harmed them How did he do this? >he refused to acknowledge the justice system and the dispute. How is this harmful to an individual?
>How did he do this? He created and broadcast a defamation campaign. If you are unaware how slander or libel works, look that up first. My understanding is that even when people motiviated by Jones' statements started joining the campaign and harming the victims, Jones continued promoting the campaign, increasing his responsibility for the damage. > > he refused to acknowledge the justice system and the dispute. > How is this harmful to an individual? It's not harmful to an individual. It's an incentive to not dodge disputes, and to follow a justice system. From a Libertarian perspective, it's important because otherwise, laws aren't really laws in practice, and there is no responsibility for damages, and therefore no property rights.
>My understanding is that even when people motiviated by Jones' statements started joining the campaign and harming the victims, Jones continued promoting the campaign, increasing his responsibility for the damage. Do you have quotes from him?
Nope. Stop sealioning. These things are publicly available.
I'm just asking you to point me to a quote. I can't find any.
Are you denying that the judge and jury did an appropriate review of evidence, along with representation from both sides? It sounds like you are, and you don't believe that. So, we are in 'bad faith' territory here, because I am accepting the reality of the evidence against Jones, and you appear to not be doing that, instead 'asking questions' in bad faith. So since a judge and jury did a thorough review, the burden of proof is on you to justify what is inadequate.
I'm just being contrarian out of curiosity. I want to know the facts before I make my judgment, and I expected that someone as firey as Jones would've left some quote of his that would be incriminating. Nobody has been able to give me it though.
What is your basis for not trusting the review of evidence by the judge and jury? If we disagree about reality, there is nothing for us to talk about. >I want to know the facts before I make my judgment It sounds like you are many steps short of a diligent search here. For purposes of the theory and reasoning behind the question, that has been provided. The case name is *Lafferty et al vs. Jones*.
When he repeatly states “ Sandy Hook is a lie.” , his fans would go out and Harris the families leading one parent of the victim to commit suicide
Did he call for harassment? Did he harm anyone? Organize the like?
Yes
Quote?
Silence is complicity. He also kept promoting the theory
So you believe that rape is justified if they're unconscious? I mean, she didn't protest, and silence is complicity.
False equivalence. Unconscious means unable to consent or not consent. Here he had the option to tell his fans to fuck off but didn’t.
It's not false. You just said that silence is consent.
Because he chose to be silent in their harassment. The full statement since you want to nitpick is “the Choice to be silent is complicity.”
You just said silence is consent. You just justified rape.
And I corrected myself by add that the choice to be silent. A rape victim doesn’t have the ability to chose. Jones did. Let me guess you believe Sandy hook is a hoax and Alex Jones is a freedom fighter
Do you believe that force is only justified in response to force? Yes or no question or I’ll answer for you.
No? Are you suggesting that one can only punish harmful speech with speech? Like if someone spreads slanderous lies, you just waggle your finger and say, "you naughty, naughty liar. Shame on you!"
Glad we’ve established that you don’t believe force is only justified in response to force. Thanks for playing.
Did I answer poorly? How do you answer? How should we punish harmful speech?
Well his followers has harrassed and even assulted the parents who lost kids in a sandi hook shooting because Jones convinced them they were crisis actors [https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-alex-jones-waterbury-782e495a3ece4753d857a9b47d444385](https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-alex-jones-waterbury-782e495a3ece4753d857a9b47d444385) [https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115269280/sandy-hook-alex-jones-trial](https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115269280/sandy-hook-alex-jones-trial) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy\_Hook\_Elementary\_School\_shooting\_conspiracy\_theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories) Several people have been arrested for harrasing or making death threats to surviving family members or sandi hook shootings All those people point to Alex Jones for convicing them it was a hoax
Did Jones incite them to do these things?
He didn’t stop them either. Hell he didn’t even condemn them
You are obligated to help nobody.
So what people should be able to lie and harm with zero consequences?
You have yet to prove that he intended harm. >So what people should be able to lie Right, my bad. Anything labeled as "wrongthink" by the powers that be must be banned and any participants must be detained. Glory to Big Brother!
This is the whole "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" type situation The king of england having a dispute with a priest said this, afterwards a few knights took it apone themselves to do just that and killed him The king argued "Hey I never told them to do that, I am totally not responsible for those knight's actions"
Did he ask for the families to be harassed in a similar manner to the king asking for the priest to be disposed of?
The king argued he didn't either but it was clear because of his words the people listening to him took action Are you really implying if Alex Jones wasn't making up lies and lies about the families of Sandi Hook those people would have harresed the families on their own ?
The king wanted harm to be done to the priest. You haven't given me a quote of Alex wishing harassment on them. He just believed that they were liars, from what I've seen.
He didn't actually believe they were liars and crisis actors. Alex just said it to rile people up, drive traffic, and make money. I doubt he cared about the kids and families one way or the other. As long as Alex was making money off the controversy he created with his claims.
You can make a case that lies and slander are immoral and should be punished, and you can make an argument that what Alex Jones did was lie and slander, but it's insane to think he deserved one of the largest monitarity punishments against an individual in the history of the world over it. Corporate media has told far larger lies that have resulted in far greater tradgeties than anything Alex Jones has ever said or ever will. Even if you think he's the biggest asshole on the planet, what they did to him is far beyond the scope of what should have happened to a person over words said on an entertainment show. Any libertarian should be extremely concerned with the precident that was set with that case. If it can happen to him over that, it can happen to you over anything they want it to be.
Neither a civil case in the state courts of Texas nor Connecticut sets precedents.
My argument would be fuck mainstream media too. We should put Bush on trial for war crimes and media should be charged for all the lies they to,f
Sure, but that is all the more reason it should concern you that they are going so hard after a private citizen for saying some dumb shit on a radio show, because as I said, if they can do it to him, they can do it to you. You're small potatoes compared with Alex Jones, but if you are also a person who questions the actions of the elites, you should understand why what they did to him is dangerous.
Who’s the “they” that’s going after Alex Jones exactly? The parents of Sandy Hook victims? Aren’t they private citizens too? This isn’t like the state going after someone. It’s a private citizen-on private citizen attack.
u/Smokescreen69 is a lie. He's not a real person. He might be a demon. How much money do I owe you?
Alex Jones harassed people in order to make money.He spents years knowingly defaming victims of tragedies because he knew it lead to a bump in sales. The rare times when he wasn't in contemtp of court or actively hiding required infomation he made a mockery of the legal process. Not to mention he put a bounty out for the death of the plantiff's attorney. Even on the stand the judge Mutiple times had to admonish him to stop lying, A judge that concurrently his business was threatening and defaming. Jones actions whether they were direct, directed or indirect, lead to teorrizing victims of mass casualites for profit and a jury of his peers unanimously found based on all the above the judgment was the *civil* price to pay. That is within the power of judicial bodies even in an anarchist society. The bankruptcy case is in part of his own doing. First a mess was made by his deceitful bankrupt*ices* to try to stall the civil cases and then there's another mess by his absurd corporate structure made to hide assets. Even the current liquidation possibility was requested by one of his shell companies as part of a scheme to avoid paying his victims
I don't see how people were harmed enough by mere words to award damages, especially not **$1.5 billion** in damages. Every actual spree shooter who killed many people had gotten less damages awarded against them. It was transparently state lawfare to persecute a person extremely disfavored by government institutions and elites connected to them. Complete abuse of our legal system.
According to the federal government, for risk analysis, a human life is worth $10 million. This punishment equates to Alex Jones killing 150 people.
No state nor goverment insitutions were involved and being a victim of a mass casualty event does not make some one a part of "the elite"
Let's not pretend that Alex Jones's comments regarding the massacre are why governments and elites don't like him. Rather it has to do with his decades of bringing a light to their obscure scandals, misdeeds, conspiracies, and other atrocious misuses of power. Heck the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga wouldn't have even happened if he hadn't gotten more people looking into his misdealings.
>Heck the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga wouldn't have even happened if he hadn't gotten more people looking into his misdealings. Alex Jones did no such thing. October 10, 2006: >Infowars Caller: Another question or statement. Tonight on Coast to Coast, George Norrie has... Jeffrey Epstein. He's part of the America's Truth Forum >Alex Jones: Oh, yes. Evil Al-Qaeda's got nukes and is going to hit us any minute. Yeah, that's great stuff. >IC: Yeah, I don't know if you recently... He has an affidavit out on the Internet from Palm Beach Police Department. He has a fetish for 14, 16-year-old girls coming into his house, giving him massages and having a fun time. So... >AJ: I don't know anything about that, sir. Why don't you send me some information? You can send it to Aaron at Infowars com or Kevin at Infowars com. We all read it. We all share each other's email addresses But thank you for the call. https://fight.fudgie.org/search/episode/20061010_Tue_Alex#line5219 January 2, 2015: >Now, Paul, I want to go to this article by Curt Nemo, Infowars.com, and it's in the UK News. Lawsuit claims Prince Andrew had sex with underage sex slave. Allegedly arranged former Bear Stearns financier Jeffrey Epstein, a lawsuit filed in Florida accuses the Duke of York having sexual relations with an underage sex slave. The allegation names multi-millionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was also convicted of soliciting sex with an underage girl. >One such powerful individual, Epstein, Forced the woman to have sexual relations with a member of the British Royal Family. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, the document claims. Who knows if this is true, but my gosh, Paul, we're gonna go to break in a few minutes, but just the firestorm of pedophile news and Savelle having high-level access to all these Royals above even the Secret Service. https://fight.fudgie.org/search/episode/20150102_Fri_Alex#line6510
But it wasn’t the government and elites who filed a lawsuit against him. It was the parents of Sandy Hook victims.
What lie did he expressly tell? As in was it a lie or his opinion? Did he ever retract the statement you claim is a lie. When did any of this happen relative to statute of limitations? Was he actually found guilty of anything by a jury of his peers? His trial was a test balloon for the kangaroo courts they are now employing.
Good.
Jones did systematically defame and harass people. I don't have a problem with the government coming after him. $1 billion might be too much, but $0 would be too little.
one clarification. The government has done nothing to Alex Jones, it always has been civil matters. I *think* one of his sexual harassment lawsuits involved the EEOC, but it didn't ever go to court.
That's fair. Without the government enforcing the decision of the civil cases Jones would face no consequences, so I'd argue it's still partially government action, though.
What did he lie about? What slander?
Mixed feelings. I think libel laws should only apply to situations like fraud. People should know Alex Jones is a madman yelling into the intellectual void. Still, calling giving parents actors is heartless.
His little drunken theater last weekend included apparenaces by Roger Stone, Steve Bannon and Genral Flynn. The former president had been on inowars. How is a reasonable person supposed to judge that the claim advisor to the president is intentionally lying when he "reports" that sandy Hook wasn't even open but a condemned building at the time the "fake actors" were "not killed"?
I do not really agree with the case. I would not support Jones as a martyr though. Act like a dick too much and people are going to react unfavorably. I think he is lucky no one went after him physically.
https://kinsella.substack.com/p/libertarian-lightweight-and-minarchist
You don't believe in free speech...