Alex Jones Billion Dollar Judgement

I'm sure he made trillions out of those "supplements" he used to sell, lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get used to it. Free speech was meant to be unconditional. A Nazi and a Klansman are just as at liberty to share and attempt to spread their views as a prosthelytizing preacher, an ignorant ditzy bimbo, or a village idiot spouting nonsense. But more than anyone, it should apply to those who voice dissent, conflicting views, a challenge to the ruling elite, a questioning of the official narrative or to point out conflicting interests and suspicious intentions behind, yes, even a tragedy and even the very existence of said tragedy.

That is all obvious to anyone with the intellect required to engage here at ATS and I am sure I have just echoed a hundred posters who commented before me. Where I wanna add something though is with regards to this judgement of there somehow being quantifiable damages which come to a billion dollars. What do you want to bet your average Joe on the street would, in Alex’s place, have been fined $5,000,000? For Alex, a billion dollars. And if Elon Musk were to so publicly draw attention to some narrative which, true or untrue, was full of holes and inexplicable evidence? Well, I assure you, the same trial would yield an order of a fine to the tune of $700,000,000,000 in so-called damages. Always a number which is more than double the person’s net worth.

Is this not the exact strategy we have predicted the Orwellian dystopia of a global enslavement would resort to when challenged? Removal from the ability to conduct commerce and participate in the economy. It is the number one way we all picture the future NWO world of the Great Reset dealing with insubordination and/or spreading of unapproved information and ideas per the Ministry of Truth or deemed terrorism if subscribed to. Sure, usually we picture a more high-tech and further progressed situation where the money is all digital and linked to us biometrically and where a person who fails to maintain his personal social score at a high enough number or he creates a scene of disagreement with TPTB and as punishment, his ability to buy and sell on the economic electronic system is switched off at some mother station and filtering system. But is this not the same behavior simply as we would expect it to manifest in the time after the government has turned on its people and disregards its constitution yet before the digitization of currency?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Can you shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater if you own the theater? This case says no, you cannot.

You can if there is a fire. Or if you have reason to believe there is a fire (smoke). In other words, the 1st protects you when you say what you believe is true.

On the other hand, the government makes laws to protect law enforcement when they lie. Prosecutors, politicians, and judges are protected when they lie. The government can feed lies to the media with no consequences. Essentially, the government makes lies legal as long as the lies are "government approved."

That's why no one will ever get a dime over Safe and Effective or Russian Collusion or any other government approved lie.

BTW, that "fire in a crowded theater" example was used to justify punishing a World War 1 protestor. As it turned out, everything he said was true.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: frogs453

The difference is when you slander people. So much so that they recieve death threats or threats of raping the daughter of the principal. When you incite people to attack other people that goes beyond free speech.

This whole "inciting people" is a rather new term that has been generated by the left. You can't say anything bad because you just might "incite" people is their recent catch phrase to use as a tool in attacking and canx people. Jan 6 is all about that, isn't it...

As I asked already, who has been hurt by Jones' rants? Who was raped, who was beat up/killed etc? You can't yell fire in a crowded theater not because you might hurt someone's feelings or "incite" someone, it is because people can actually get hurt. Jones has long since apologized and for a good while has said he believes people died there, AND he was canx and lost 10s of millions already for years now.

Slandering is harder to prove since you basically need to show lost of something in that slander, like losing their job. Congress has slandered Trump for 5 years, so see where that gets him. Also, did Jones' directly slander individuals by name?

That's really the issue. Denying the reality of the event may be an insult to the parents of the children, and bitterly cruel and unjustified insult at that.

However the probability of them suffering any professional, financial, or any kind of other material harm from it is so near to zero as to be indistriguishable from the odds of winning the powerball lottery jackpot (which Jones will need to do twice or three times, in order to pay the ruling.....)

He did them great emotional harm, but no material harm at all.

The freedom of speech/press protects the right to do emotional harm.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Mazius
a reply to: olaru12
Is that true?

Yes, I received a warning for pointing out crisis actors and their repeated actions.

If AJ had of not run his mouth, he wouldn't be in this predicament. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes....

Now AJ can run for political office and get his billion back.

Or I wonder if AJ will have a sale on his supplement line.

The problem is: he didn't play stupid games. It was bad reporting to be sure. But he inflicted no material harm on any of the parents.

Emotional harm yes. Material harm. No.