Judge Napolitano on Free Speech and the Alex Jones case

[notmyfault2020]

https://www.newsmax.com/judgeandrewpnapolitano/alex-jones-freedom-of-speech-first-amendment/2022/10/21/id/1092838/

I was never a big fan of Alex Jones (though had not been following him last several years so don't really know much about the Alex Jones of 2022)

But he had a right to say and i totally DO concur with this, that the gummit cannot be trusted. Boy, do I agree with that one! And I have a million reasons to do so..

Judge N mentions the Brandenberg case, which I am somewhat familiar with. Brandenberg had a KKK rally, if I recall correctly, and people in his town wanted it stopped. But free speech was invoked and B won.

So why didn't Alex Jones win?

 

[pknopp]

You have a free speech right to yell "fire" in a theater. You will be held accountable if you yell "fire" and people are harmed. The judge should understand this.

 

[Oddball]

So why didn't Alex Jones win?

A biased judge, who wouldn't allow Jones to present a vigorous defense......And appeals to the feelz.

 

[Oddball]

You have a free speech right to yell "fire" in a theater. You will be held accountable if you yell "fire" and people are harmed. The judge should understand this.

You're really on an irrelevancy roll today!

Nobody was physically harmed by Jones's ridiculous conspiracy theories.

 

[White 6]

https://www.newsmax.com/judgeandrewpnapolitano/alex-jones-freedom-of-speech-first-amendment/2022/10/21/id/1092838/

I was never a big fan of Alex Jones (though had not been following him last several years so don't really know much about the Alex Jones of 2022)

But he had a right to say and i totally DO concur with this, that the gummit cannot be trusted. Boy, do I agree with that one! And I have a million reasons to do so..

Judge N mentions the Brandenberg case, which I am somewhat familiar with. Brandenberg had a KKK rally, if I recall correctly, and people in his town wanted it stopped. But free speech was invoked and B won.

So why didn't Alex Jones win?

Because it was a defamation lawsuit based on damage done to the families of the dead, by the asshole who lied about it for fun and profit. It has nothing to do with Brandenberg. Alex got to say what he wanted, but is responsible for what he got to say. End of Story.

 

[pknopp]

You're really on an irrelevancy roll today!

Nobody was physically harmed by Jones's ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Harm does not have to always be physical in a court of law. But you know this. With libel, a person is rarely physically harmed.

 

[Marener]

A biased judge, who wouldn't allow Jones to present a vigorous defense......And appeals to the feelz.

Jones lost in a default decision because he didn’t comply with pre-trial discovery.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Harm does not have to always be physical in a court of law. But you know this. With libel, a person is rarely physically harmed.

But with libel, you have to show damages. In order to be rewarded money, you must show you lost money.

Not a single person in this trial was able to demonstrate how AJ cost them a penny.

It was all a sham and a joke.

I hate that he did that, but he had the right to do it and I believe he will win on appeal. It wouldn't shock me, with a settlement of almost a billion dollars, that this winds up in the lap of SCOTUS.

 

[notmyfault2020]

You have a free speech right to yell "fire" in a theater. You will be held accountable if you yell "fire" and people are harmed. The judge should understand this.

which of Jones's words fit into the category of yelling fire and harming people?

 

[notmyfault2020]

Because it was a defamation lawsuit based on damage done to the families of the dead, by the asshole who lied about it for fun and profit. It has nothing to do with Brandenberg. Alex got to say what he wanted, but is responsible for what he got to say. End of Story.

I'll wait for a more reliable source than some demonrat on the internet

 

[notmyfault2020]

But with libel, you have to show damages. In order to be rewarded money, you must show you lost money.

Not a single person in this trial was able to demonstrate how AJ cost them a penny.

It was all a sham and a joke.

I hate that he did that, but he had the right to do it and I believe he will win on appeal. It wouldn't shock me, with a settlement of almost a billion dollars, that this winds up in the lap of SCOTUS.

I don't think just losing $$ is "damages"

But I don't see where there was serious damage of any kind in the aj case (not that I am thoroughly familiar w/ it..)

 

[pknopp]

But with libel, you have to show damages. In order to be rewarded money, you must show you lost money.

Not a single person in this trial was able to demonstrate how AJ cost them a penny.

It was all a sham and a joke.

Even then.......he admitted he lied to profit himself. If I am selling a lotion that I argue cures baldness, I am going to be prosecuted when it does not.

But go ahead, defend him.

 

[pknopp]

which of Jones's words fit into the category of yelling fire and harming people?

His lies. If there really is a fire you can't be prosecuted.

 

[Oddball]

Harm does not have to always be physical in a court of law. But you know this. With libel, a person is rarely physically harmed.

Nobody was libeled badly enough to justify nearly a billion dollars in alleged damages.

There's literally no sappy sob story that you moonbats won't swallow hook, line, and sinker.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I don't think just losing $$ is "damages"

But I don't see where there was serious damage of any kind in the aj case (not that I am thoroughly familiar w/ it..)

Yes, that's the basis of libel and slander.

For instance, let's say you lie about me and say that I raped my children or some kind of bad shit like that. As a result, I lost my job or was not hired because of what you said about me. If what you said was a lie, I can go after you for the money I lost because of the lies you told.

But if you lie about me, saying something and I can't prove to a judge that you have cost me money, I'm not owed money.

Court is about making you whole again, not ringing up the $$$ register.

 

[pknopp]

Nobody was libeled badly enough to justify nearly a billion dollars in alleged damages.

There's literally no sappy sob story that you moonbats won't swallow hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not all that concerned on the final numbers. They will continue to be argued in court.

He lied to hurt people and to profit himself. There is no defending that.

 

[iceberg]

Because it was a defamation lawsuit based on damage done to the families of the dead, by the asshole who lied about it for fun and profit. It has nothing to do with Brandenberg. Alex got to say what he wanted, but is responsible for what he got to say. End of Story.

So if lying for fun and profit is a crime, can we do this to everyone we choose to paint with a broad brush?

Or just those you hate?

Using justice as an emotional tool eventually backfires further into regression as we now pick and choose what a lie is base on how we feel.

 

[airplanemechanic]

His lies. If there really is a fire you can't be prosecuted.

Can't be prosecuted for yelling "fire" even if there isn't one.

You need to stop using that analogy. It was used one time in an explanation of a ruling by SCOTUS that has since been overturned over 40 years ago. This statement WAS NEVER BINDING LAW.

YES, you CAN yell "fire" in a theatre.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

"But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago."

You have a free speech right to yell "fire" in a theater. You will be held accountable if you yell "fire" and people are harmed. The judge should understand this.

Wrong. See above.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not all that concerned on the final numbers. They will continue to be argued in court.

He lied to hurt people and to profit himself. There is no defending that.

He spreads conspiracy theories because that's what he does....Claiming he did it to harm people on purpose is ludicrous....Though you do have a corner on ludicrous today, so there's that.

 

[notmyfault2020]

so l

His lies. If there really is a fire you can't be prosecuted.

so list his lies