Judge Napolitano on Free Speech and the Alex Jones case

[Foxfyre]

not true, there is PAIN and SUFFERING, as well as financial losses, in suits.

this inhuman Jones caused tremendous pain, day in and day out calling these parents, who buried their 5 year olds, liars and criminals by participating in some sort of govt hoax, to take your guns away, saying they never had a child that they buried... His supporters then stalked these parents, some families had to move for their safety..... And that ain't even, the half of it!

.03% of Americans, if that--many could be in other countries--tune into Infowars in any given month and many of those are repeat visitors and/or those looking for content to use to criticize Alex Jones. The idea that even a small fraction of that .03% caused tremendous pain to anybody just isn't credible.

I don't condone the hateful actions of anybody attacking anybody for no good reason and that includes those who go to the homes of Supreme Court justices and make their lives miserable or drive peaceful people out of restaurants because they don't like their politics or any other stupid, ugly, hurtful behavior. And I think Alex Jones utterly stupid for his stated opinions about Sandy Hook.

But he caused intense pain and suffering to those parents who now, 10 years later, decide to make him pay? Just not credible.

 

[Mac-7]

Why make it a Party issue?

Whats wrong with pointing out the leftwing political bias against jones?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Whats wrong with pointing out the leftwing political bias against jones?

There is nothing political about it. Why are you making it political?

 

[Mac-7]

There is nothing political about it. Why are you making it political?

Because it is political

Everything the left does is political

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Some would like to turn a person's horrible behavior about the massacre of children into a political issue ]


While we don’t know how the Sandy Hook exchange will play out in the full interview, what can be proved is that Jones is a liar who -- since developing a high profile during the 2016 election -- has attempted to sanitize his definitive past claims that the shooting was a “hoax.”

In 2013, Jones called the shooting “staged” and said, “It’s got inside job written all over it.”

In March 2014, Jones said, “I’ve looked at it and undoubtedly there’s a cover-up, there’s actors, they’re manipulating, they’ve been caught lying, and they were pre-planning before it and rolled out with it.”

In December 2014, Jones said on his radio program, “The whole thing is a giant hoax.”

Jones continued: “The general public doesn’t know the school was actually closed the year before. They don’t know they’ve sealed it all, demolished the building. They don’t know that they had the kids going in circles in and out of the building as a photo-op. Blue screen, green screens, they got caught using.”

Making it clear he didn’t view the occurrence of the shooting as an open question, Jones explicitly said that the Obama administration was behind the shooting, noting, “It took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.”

Jones made similar comments the following January, saying the shooting was “a synthetic, completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are that they clearly used actors.”

In July 2015, Jones said cast doubt on whether children were actually killed during the shooting, before citing prominent Sandy Hook hoaxer Wolfgang Halbig.

Jones began to spin his past Sandy Hook statements in earnest following the victory of Donald Trump as his past statements came under increased scrutiny because of his association with Trump and his claim that the new president would appear on his show in the near future.

Despite his recent contradictory claims about the shooting, Jones continues to make statements that fuel Sandy Hook conspiracy theories.

Here are some headlines that advance Sandy Hook conspiracy theories that are still active on Jones’ website, Infowars.com:

[Infowars.com, accessed 6/13/17]

[Infowars.com, accessed 6/13/17]

[Infowars.com, accessed 6/13/17]

[Infowars.com, accessed 6/13/17]

[Infowars.com, accessed 6/13/17]


(full article online)

Here is exactly what Alex Jones has said about the Sandy Hook massacre

www.mediamatters.org

 

[initforme]

Nobody really cares if he has to pay. So let him pay. Done. Next. This has no effect on you. Zero. So quit worrying about it. It's been decided and I don't care whether or not he has to pay. That's for the jury. They decided. It's done. Over. Decided.

 

[pknopp]

Yet Facebook fact-checkers do so regularly. The Main stream media lie for profit and hurt people on an almost hourly basis.

So sue them. All you have to do is prove in court the harm.

 

[emilynghiem]

This argument came up between a vet who is a Jones Fan, a secular Conservative (both arguing Jones had first amendment free speech and is not responsible for the grief and threats of other people) and me and another person both arguing Jones cannot commit defamation and slander as First Amendment free speech. The argument we could not resolve: Did Jones call people liars and hoaxes "by name" where it is slandering private citizens. If he called "the parents" all hoaxes and fraudsters isnt that still identifiable individual private person's.. NOT a public figure. NOT an institution. The problem is even naming the group, was enough to identify them individually. If he said parents in general of shootings are in denial or a generic group yes he has free speech yo share opinions. If he accused govt in general or named public figures then public figures have to prove "malicious intent" to win defamation and slander cases. Private citizens have only to sue to force their accusers to "prove their accusations are true" and if they can't then it's slander libel defamation. Was calling out "parents of Sandy Hook" enough to slander "private individuals" that's the point we could resolve because they were used as a "political institution" and were dehumanized. They weren't all specifically called by name right?

 

[airplanemechanic]

This argument came up between a vet who is a Jones Fan, a secular Conservative (both arguing Jones had first amendment free speech and is not responsible for the grief and threats of other people) and me and another person both arguing Jones cannot commit defamation and slander as First Amendment free speech. The argument we could not resolve: Did Jones call people liars and hoaxes "by name" where it is slandering private citizens. If he called "the parents" all hoaxes and fraudsters isnt that still identifiable individual private person's.. NOT a public figure. NOT an institution. The problem is even naming the group, was enough to identify them individually. If he said parents in general of shootings are in denial or a generic group yes he has free speech yo share opinions. If he accused govt in general or named public figures then public figures have to prove "malicious intent" to win defamation and slander cases. Private citizens have only to sue to force their accusers to "prove their accusations are true" and if they can't then it's slander libel defamation. Was calling out "parents of Sandy Hook" enough to slander "private individuals" that's the point we could resolve because they were used as a "political institution" and were dehumanized. They weren't all specifically called by name right?

Yea, that ruling against Jones set a dangerous precedent. If you're offended by free speech, you can sue and win a billion dollars. Jones has a right to his opinion and to express his opinion. He said he felt that SH was a false flag. He has a right to feel that way and to express his feelings. He never ONCE told his listeners to attack any of the families, harass them, threaten them, etc.

Yet he's held responsible for his listeners behavior.

It's beyond ridiculous.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yea, that ruling against Jones set a dangerous precedent. If you're offended by free speech, you can sue and win a billion dollars. Jones has a right to his opinion and to express his opinion. He said he felt that SH was a false flag. He has a right to feel that way and to express his feelings. He never ONCE told his listeners to attack any of the families, harass them, threaten them, etc.

Yet he's held responsible for his listeners behavior.

It's beyond ridiculous.

I can understand the grey area. Had he specifically named the people/parents he was accusing of committing fraud and colliding with government to conspire on felonious violations, then it would be more clearly defamation / slander.


But he just called out the parents and school by treating them as public figures. Yes, you can make accusations of govt and public institutions without due process to prove wrongdoing. But the PARENTS are private citizens

And since this case was public and the parents names were exposed publicly in the media, they got targeted, harassed, one man got assaulted, stalked at their homes, as if they had been named by Jones. The problem was they did elect to become public figures by running for any office as a choice. They are not public but the school and its staff are paid by public tax dollars.

I might compare this to Amber Guygers case of shooting Botham Jean to death "because she thought she was shooting to kill an intruder in her apt." But that's not who he was. He was an occupant I'm his own apt, not a trespasser in hers.

She was treating him as something he was not, and her intent "to shoot to kill" was meant for an intruder. She did not mean to kill him, but she did admit her intent was to kill.

In Alex Jones case his intent was politically to attack a "public institution". Unfortunately the slander and defamation affected "civilians" sort of like "collateral damage." These people are not public figures as he was treating "the parents of Sandy Hook" as a collective group. So I can understand that what he was speaking to in his intent was not those individuals. He really believed he was addressing a criminal conspiracy.

When Hillary Clinton is publicly accused of crimes without due process, as a public figure, the element of malice has to be proven to win a defamation case.

Here it seems the grey area was not specifically reporting the individual names, but identifying them as Sandy Hook "parents of the students killed" was enough to be specific who he was calling lying frauds.

Emotionally the impact of the shooting and the problems of "other people" targeting these families for harassment added motivation to compel action on the issue of defamation and slander.

Even though he may not have known these were false accusations, the fact they were false still makes it defamation even if it's negligence or ignorance and not deliberately committed while knowing otherwise.

I would recommend that Jones work with the schools and family to promote prevention and solutions through the media. Some kind of public service and use media to raise funds to help the families. It looks like since they can't get closure or restitution from the original crimes, this case allows those families to get restitution from another source. This whole mess ended up projecting and prolonging all the grief and stress onto a third party that the families could sue in court and get some sense of justice from it. If the parents are used as a public figure to make statements then the flip side is using Jones as a public figure to make a political statement.