It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For Those Who Say Alex Jones Verdict Was Not About Free Speech Think Again.

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BernnieJGato

Still no mention of a trial? Default judgment based on... what again? Not responding to a discovery order?


The same phone that was turned over to the plaintiffs in its entirety?

See where this is going?



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket

The Supreme Court denied him multiple times... what more do you want?



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

yeah, i see that you fail to admit when your wrong even when tons of evidence shows otherwise.

this one even says the jury found him guilty of defamation,


A jury found Alex Jones guilty of defamation on Thursday after he claimed the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax, making the podcaster pay over $4 million to the parents of a victim.
Jury Finds Alex Jones Guilty of Defamation in Sandy Hook Shooting Case, Orders Him to Pay $4 Million



and then there's this from last year where he was found guilty then by default, on the four others, which i was wrong about where they were. 3 in Texas, 1 in Connecticut. so that's four lost by defualt, and one by jury.


The judge's ruling combines with three other prior decisions in Texas, granting a sweeping victory to the families of the shooting victims in the defamation cases against Jones, according to The New York Times.
As Insider previously reported, a Texas judge similarly issued default judgments in those cases after Jones and his lawyers also failed to comply with court orders to provide documents. The judge, in that case, said Jones showed "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules."
Alex Jones found guilty in all 4 defamation cases the Sandy Hook families brought against him


what's that old saying, you can lead a horse to water.



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BernnieJGato

Last line of your source:

Last year, Texas judge Guerra Gamble found Jones liable for damages in three defamation lawsuits, entering default judgments after Jones failed to give documents to the parents’ lawyers.


FFS, think for yourself.

From your second source.


A Connecticut judge ruled he was guilty by default because he refused a court order to turn over documents.


...you were saying?



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

so those were other law suits not this one. just because you don't turn over evidence/ documents that was requested or odered to be by the judge to other side when order to do so doesn't mean you win, and it's going to go away.

basically he was showing contempt for our system that he claims he is fighting to save, if your gonna bump your gums talking sh@@ and making claims, better be prepared to back it up when called on it. if he didn't have nothing to hide he would have turned it over.

think for yourself.



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BernnieJGato

Connecticut Case


In her ruling, Bellis criticized Jones’ attorney for providing only “sanitized, inaccurate” financial records and showed “callous disregard” for her repeated rulings to provide complete analytics data. She found Jones’ attorneys actions “were not just careful” but constituted “a pattern of obstructive conduct” requiring the most severe sanction of default, what she called a “last resort,” as reported by the Hartford Courant.


Was this proven? Was there any redress?


A default judgement means that the case will go directly to a jury to decide damages. Last month, a district court judge in Travis County, Texas also issued a default judgement against Jones for failing to comply with discovery requests in two defamation suits brought by the families of two Sandy Hook shooting victims.


Texas Case


A district court judge for Travis County, Texas issued a default judgment against Alex Jones for failing to comply with discovery requests in the defamation suits brought by two families in the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting. The shooting, which occurred on December 14, 2012, resulted in the deaths of 20 children and six adult school staff members.


Same as the above.


I think you've no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this.



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Once again, nobody is noticing the elephant in the room. This isn't about AJ; it's about the total control of information.

The 'disinformation board' failed under greater than expected public outcry, which I think had more to do with the obvious freak (Nina Jankowicz) picked to head it than loosing freedom of speech for most people.

They've regrouped and will now be doing it in stealth mode, one tiny chip at a time. It's how they always get unpopular laws and regulations passed. They've already got Twit, FB, etc. under total control. Fox News is now under liberal control, and people are noticing how content has softened- plus things that normally would be called out aren't even mentioned. Any information platforms not sanctioned by liberal media are rapidly disappearing, and people like AJ are soon to be a thing of the past.

The US has a long, long history of corruption and abuse of citizens- including illegal medical experiments and building schools on KNOWN toxic waste sites. It took years-decades in some cases-to expose the truth, and it always started with 'conspiracy theories'. Once they have the ability to control what people are allowed to discus, we can look forward to being happy. And owning nothing.



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: SeaWorthy
Quote me on that.
Or shut up.

You are saying it you just don't see it.



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Before anyone tries to strawman argue that I am for Alex Jones and trying to defend him I want to stop you right there.

I propose to you this question.
Where in the 7nth amendment of the US constitution or the constitution as a whole does it say that the Judge has a right to declare someone guilty in a civil trial?
Oh right it doesn’t.

And here is the 7nth amendment

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
edit on 6-8-2022 by Brassmonkey because: Grammar



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: vNex92

Are outright malicious lies free speech, though?



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Like banning books that are to offensive for some today's world because some people would get emotional over images and words?



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Wouldn't you say banning books is wrong just as much those books that had outright malicious lies? and yet you still have many books today.

That have malicious lies and those books with certain topics arent yet banned...



posted on Aug, 6 2022 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I am pretty sure that free speech is when you talk a bunch of crap and no one gets hurt. Correct me if I am wrong but Jones continued to spread BS even when his gullible idiot followers attacked and threatened the parents.

What Does Free Speech Mean?




Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).



posted on Aug, 7 2022 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheEndOfItAll

So why haven't they gone after those followers of his that made those threats? which they had committed a crime.



posted on Aug, 7 2022 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: chr0naut

Wouldn't you say banning books is wrong just as much those books that had outright malicious lies? and yet you still have many books today.

That have malicious lies and those books with certain topics arent yet banned...


Fiction is allowable, but when it is malicious and is portrayed as truth, it should at least be restricted from some readers.

You have to have some limits or otherwise people will do all sorts of crimes claiming that they have a right to act freely no matter how evil those acts. It is exactly the same with free speech. You can't say something evil, and then claim that those who judge you are opposing your free speech. That's kindergarten level comprehension.

The 9th of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor". Is God denying your free speech?

I also happen to think that the Biblical Law overrides secular law, but I understand that some others might disagree. Either way, the optimal thing is not to purposely contravene either.

edit on 7/8/2022 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2022 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I wasn't talking about fiction.

White House sidesteps question on Dr. Seuss after Biden erased him from Read Across America Day and instead calls it a day for celebrating 'diverse' authors




but when it is malicious and is portrayed as truth

Liberals and their personalities do it all the time and yet get away with it.



posted on Aug, 7 2022 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




You can't say something evil

The Liberals had being saying something evil for a decade. On twitter as well.
Their accounts haven't banned nor punished.

There are far leftist groups accounts for example are still running on twitter despite threats made agaisnt none Liberal people.



posted on Aug, 7 2022 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheEndOfItAll
I am pretty sure that free speech is when you talk a bunch of crap and no one gets hurt. Correct me if I am wrong but Jones continued to spread BS even when his gullible idiot followers attacked and threatened the parents.

What Does Free Speech Mean?




Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).


Do the victims of antifa and BLM get to sue Kamala Harris and govenors who raised bail and released people who went back out to once again destroy property and lives?



posted on Aug, 7 2022 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: chr0naut

I wasn't talking about fiction.

White House sidesteps question on Dr. Seuss after Biden erased him from Read Across America Day and instead calls it a day for celebrating 'diverse' authors




but when it is malicious and is portrayed as truth

Liberals and their personalities do it all the time and yet get away with it.


Oh, I did not know about that.

Seems to me that there were also several children's books from back then that used racial stereotypes. I guess that they weren't as sensitive to things, or as litigious about such things back then.

I can't understand why the books could not be modified very slightly to retain their original intent but to remove any such unfashionable gaffes.



posted on Aug, 7 2022 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: chr0naut




You can't say something evil

The Liberals had being saying something evil for a decade. On twitter as well.
Their accounts haven't banned nor punished.

There are far leftist groups accounts for example are still running on twitter despite threats made against none Liberal people.


I have seen a lot of online accusation that blames liberals for saying things that they weren't actually saying.

But I'm not the moderator of Twitter. I can't do anything about it. If I had a say, I'd just turn off social media, because they have been used as almost free advertising of the very basest kind for nearly a decade, and they aren't necessary. Why should someone get rich on lies and trivia just so the US can spy on everyone?

Perhaps you would get more traction if you addressed Twitter with your concerns?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join