$85M if you slander dead people. What's the pricetag to perpetually be in on the murders?

Okay, so the way court stuff tends to go is, every key ruling and such, legal precedents, they in a sense become the 'law of the land'. Benchmarks that is, literally set by 'the bench'.

Alex Jones, enough families offended, $85M each, means damn near a billion dollar lawsuit, now. Fine. I'll give them this one!

How about how much the MSM owes the families of every mass shooting victim, like ever?

The Media Is an Accomplice in School Shootings

There’s really no useful debate on the point. The consensus of social scientists since David Phillips’ groundbreaking work in 1974 is that highly publicized stories of deviant and dangerous behavior influences copycat incidents. Phillips’ and scores of subsequent studies showed, for example, that suicide rates spike in the week after an inappropriately publicized celebrity suicide. Contrast this trend with no increase in suicides in the week following a media strike that unintentionally suppresses such coverage.

The same is true of school massacres. On Groundhog Day, Feb 2, 1996 a 14-year-old boy walked into his Moses Lake, Washington, Junior High School algebra class and started shooting. He killed his teacher, two classmates and severely wounded another student. Subsequent media coverage obsessed over the color of his clothes, his insidious planning and the inventory of his arsenal. In addition, they practically offered a how-to guide for concealing and deploying weapons in a coat. But what got the most attention was the fact that after shooting his teacher, he delivered a line from the Stephen King novel Rage with charismatic panache. Suddenly, the invisible adolescent was a cultural icon. Within a week, another shooting occurred that clearly echoed that of Feb 2. Then another on February 19. Another on March 11. Yet another on March 13. Along with other similarities, more than one of the apparent copycats also cited King’s novel as a creative resource.
www.psychologytoday.com...

There's endless science on this stuff, and they keep it going. They pump it up. Fine its not like if they pump up a war more missiles get fired at the "enemy". Oh wait, actually that's how it goes.

But the difference here is... 'We'll make ya famous'!! Deranged people, people pushed over the edge, etc, check it out, gun masses down and we'll make ya famous. Where this isn't even just my qualitative take on the matter, it's quantitative science.

There's a scientific term for it, "Media Contagion Effect". I could wall of text you here with material, but instead I emplore you to just google that term plus 'mass shootings', and PDF files galore come up.

So if $85M is a fair bargain for slander after the fact, what is being an accomplice to the murders worth? Make someone cry even harder afterwards, versus being the engine that drives this stuff. I'd say about a 3.7 billion dollars each.

Looks like there was 693 just last year alone. Do the math.
www.thetrace.org...

Mine just told me that the MSM owes $2,564,100,000,000.

For last year alone.

What's the total all the Big Media are even worth?

Seems apparent, all those victims families, they own all the big movie studios, book publishing houses, cable tv channels, etc, now.

I mean unless my math is waaaay off.

Imagine if the MSM started giving every soldier that blows up anybody, no matter who as all that tends to go, give them 15 minutes of fame! Pump it up!!!

Recruitment would be up Up UP!

Problem solved! Here on ATS. Gopro the soldiers, make them micro-celebrities like they do the mass shooters, poof we've solved the military's current lack of new recruits finally.

I mean they just wanna kill a bunch of people, right?

Because life sucks, I'm an expert on that subject. Well not the kill people part. Or the other element driving this... theorem we're talking about, oh ya get famous 'by any means necessary'.

This is the solution, check it out kids, join the military, gun people down, blow them up even 'better', they'll put you on the local news. Hey you even get to blow up children, I mean if that's your thing right. You even have potentially blowing Russian's in your future, and check it out, they're effectively all WHITE. If that's you're bag baby. And then you'll be on CNN etc for sure.

And then at least I wont ever have to worry about the children, here, at least on that front.

a reply to: godsovein

Back in the day if you were disrespected or your honor put under question and the matter was not resolvable by words and agreement you could challenge that foe to a dual by way of sword or single shot pistol combat to either the death or severe enough injury. I think we should bring that back 🤠

a reply to: godsovein

Love how protected opinions don't apply if your anti-democrat.

He didn't slander anyone, slander requires names. You can't slander an "event". You can disrespect an event, but you can't slander it.

I think he needs a new lawyer who will argue this case of freedom of speech. I mean "social media" book lied to people, killed thousands because of those lies. But we're protected by the freedom of speech act claiming that it was a "protected opinion" By arguing this case like this it would be moved to the supreme court.

So what Alex Jones is allowed to have his own opinion. Even if it is a dickish opinion. It's still an opinion, a protected one by law. There is a huge difference between opinions and slander.

So my guess is this will hit the supreme court and be thrown out and dismissed. Because this lawsuit violates the freedom of speech act at it's core.

slan·der
[ˈslandər]
NOUN
law
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation: Compare with libel.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"
VERB
make false and damaging statements about (someone):
"they were accused of slandering the head of state"

I will say this, if you agree or disagree with him. The fact that he was sued for his opinion should worry you.

I don’t like Alex, but the amount he was hit with is beyond insane.
It will negatively impact future questioning over school shootings. Kind of like it did with questioning what went down in Uvalde.
They set a precedent and not in a good way.

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: godsovein

Love how protected opinions don't apply if your anti-democrat.

He didn't slander anyone, slander requires names. You can't slander an "event". You can disrespect an event, but you can't slander it.

I think he needs a new lawyer who will argue this case of freedom of speech. I mean "social media" book lied to people, killed thousands because of those lies. But we're protected by the freedom of speech act claiming that it was a "protected opinion" By arguing this case like this it would be moved to the supreme court.

So what Alex Jones is allowed to have his own opinion. Even if it is a dickish opinion. It's still an opinion, a protected one by law. There is a huge difference between opinions and slander.

So my guess is this will hit the supreme court and be thrown out and dismissed. Because this lawsuit violates the freedom of speech act at it's core.

Why do so many Americans struggle with the concept of Freedom of Speech? It's not the freedom to say whatever you want without repercussion:

"The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. This means that:

A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy.
A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job.
A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with."

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: godsovein

Love how protected opinions don't apply if your anti-democrat.

He didn't slander anyone, slander requires names. You can't slander an "event". You can disrespect an event, but you can't slander it.

I think he needs a new lawyer who will argue this case of freedom of speech. I mean "social media" book lied to people, killed thousands because of those lies. But we're protected by the freedom of speech act claiming that it was a "protected opinion" By arguing this case like this it would be moved to the supreme court.

So what Alex Jones is allowed to have his own opinion. Even if it is a dickish opinion. It's still an opinion, a protected one by law. There is a huge difference between opinions and slander.

So my guess is this will hit the supreme court and be thrown out and dismissed. Because this lawsuit violates the freedom of speech act at it's core.

slan·der
[ˈslandər]
NOUN
law
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation: Compare with libel.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"
VERB
make false and damaging statements about (someone):
"they were accused of slandering the head of state"

I will say this, if you agree or disagree with him. The fact that he was sued for his opinion should worry you.

Sounds like the media should also be held accountable for riots caused by misinformation about police shootings

a reply to: bobsa

How is any of that relevant though? He's not being suspended from a private school, or fired from a private business, and it's his media company so he can publish what he wants. Now at what point should a publicly declared opinion be taken to court?

My point is that Free speech is not freedom to say anything you want. There seems to be an idea, especially in these forums that Freedom of Speech as enshrined in the 1st Amendment to the American Constitution gives you an absolute right to say whatever you feel like on any platform without censorship or repercussion.

1st amendment freedom of speech is limited only to government censorship. The facts is Alex Jones has spouted hatred and bile, claiming that Children who where murdered didn't exist, the parents where crisis actors etc etc it got so bad people where arrested for urinating on the graves of murdered children.

Rittenhouse and Trump will get over $200 billion A PIECE according to this precedent.

Why do so many Americans struggle with the concept of Freedom of Speech? It's not the freedom to say whatever you want without repercussion:

"The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. This means that:

A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy.
A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job.
A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with."

I think it's got to do on how things have been recently handled over the years, it has created a "illusory" alternative meaning of the 1st amendment. Things, at schools have definitely been changing over the last two decades no doubt about it and that also influences, I used to think how new generations had it easier getting knowledge with the internet and all of these new resources; ;the other day for example I was watching how my nephew was getting instant help from this geometry tutor service app which highly contrasts with my time back in high school but now when I see these situations I don't know, it's way too complicated for my taste.

I agree, back in the day I used to see people grasped this notion perfectly, yeah, there's freedom of speech but, like everything else in the world, there are consequences of your actions. The 1st amendment is not called "we've got your back no matter who or how you pissed off". One thing is to express a regular balanced opinion an another thing is to start the snowball effect with your opinions so people go to piss over kid's graves.

Cmon everyone, arent you seeing the Big Picture here, the MSM are as big a cause of all this mass shooting mania as anything. It's the chink in their armor. You wanna take them down? Focus on that, re-read the OP, skip past my followup, THIS issue is how you get them. Especially now, with this AJ news jazz.

a reply to: bobsa

"The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. 

FBI agent got 10 mil.......

a reply to: bobsa

it got so bad people where arrested for urinating on the graves of murdered children.

Source and be sure to point out where Jones was involved

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: bobsa

it got so bad people where arrested for urinating on the graves of murdered children.

Source and be sure to point out where Jones was involved

here you go:

www.bbc.co.uk...
uk.movies.yahoo.com... rer_sig=AQAAAHdp4FIfR4_BktEyrCw-0Ht9C49EBneL-9o3hmF2hoD9phkK2zLc5uGM1E-ho6cCXfyrDBq4OSXARlFkZhGn67aVWHWet9nIvtk6s9LF6Hk47SW6k9WQgzfCbOJVt6VOcwOWvRuBh0 6Bcy2unPwmApH3gVqXQIkx74zHVosV3eVC

a reply to: BlackArrow

Didn't slander anyone?!!!!

Jury disagrees.

So do the parents who he defamed.

Which he did and admitted his lies.

a reply to: bobsa

Link is busted.

a reply to: godsovein

Mine isn't.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

What the link to your profile?

a reply to: godsovein

What's wrong with it?

My profile link works just fine.