Infowars fighting attempted shutdown

a reply to: andy06shake

You added nothing to the discussion other than generalizations.

I probably know just about as much about the subject as you, but good luck telling people what they dont have, displaying your own ignorance there i think you may find.

F

As far as I remember, this incident gave LOTS of momentum to the CT. Inf0Wars was on the decline, since there were so many newcomers to the YT format. The fuss over this lawsuit gave AJ the attention he craved....be careful what you wish for.

But the bottom line is, here we are still talking about it in 2024, rather than it being put to bed quietly and without further scrutiny.

Anytime you see these types of legal cases, you have to consider what are the motives, and where does the truth lay? In my mind, this situation gives rise to CT and compels further scrutiny, a sort of Streisand Effect, that now will not go away.

The reporting I saw was pretty compelling, and I could easily raise questions that nobody can answer, but this thread is more about the persona of AJ. Worth noting, this judgement was a summary judgement, with NONE of the evidence heard. I'm sure AJ still has his case corked up in a bottle someplace. Lo, when the public can finally wrap their head around it.

a reply to: 5thHead

I quoted this the first time.

If you're not making the comparison then why bring it up?

Because UkTruth asked me a question and that was part of my response to him. Where do I equate one to the other?? I don't...

Because free speech is one of the founding principles of the United States of America.

Americans seem to have a nervous breakdown when slander/libel is mention, and some how cofuse it with freedom of speech.
It's hysterical to see the reaction.

www.britannica.com...

In certain areas the mass media have broad discretion under the doctrine of “fair comment”—a common-law privilege to criticize and comment on matters of public interest—but such comment must pertain to a person’s work—not private affairs—and must be factually accurate.

originally posted by: 777Vader

Are you saying people in America are fat and fat people have roundish faces??

a reply to: Kurokage

Because UkTruth asked me a question and that was part of my response to him. Where do I equate one to the other?? I don't...

In your response to him.

I'm not going to explain your own post to you.

Americans seem to have a nervous breakdown when slander/libel is mention, and some how cofuse it with freedom of speech.
It's hysterical to see the reaction.

Yeah. It's how you silence people shut them up and make everyone else say to themselves "Wow, I better be quiet and stop asking questions. I don't want to wind up like that.". And the king or tyrant or gang keeps on calling you subjects.

And then you have some British laws that Americans with any brains would laugh at. Who cares. We aren't under British rule and free speech is one of the reasons we're not.

a reply to: kwaka


The Answer to Attacking America Freedoms is 1776 !



x.com... b405baf7922394524b9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.infowars.com%2F

a reply to: 5thHead

In your response to him.

I'm not going to explain your own post to you.

Wrong!! Please point out the part where I say one is the same or equates to the other, you can't.

Yeah. It's how you silence people shut them up and make everyone else say to themselves "Wow, I better be quiet and stop asking questions. I don't want to wind up like that.". And the king or tyrant or gang keeps on calling you subjects.

Libel and slander have nothing to do with free speech, it's to do with being responsible for what you say. I take it you had difficulty reading the quote from britannica I posted.
And who said anything about not being allowed to ask questions? Again another American who can't tell the difference, or understand their own laws and constitution.....

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Again he's a very angry man, fake or otherwise.

It is not easy to keep anger in check when injustices are committed or lawless people prosper. Yet under these very circumstances the Bible urges: “Let anger alone and leave rage; do not show yourself heated up only to do evil.”​—Ps. 37:8.

There is wisdom in ‘letting anger alone.’ Anger can be a very damaging emotion. When a person gives vent to anger, his blood pressure rises and the pulse and respiratory rates increase. When anger passes, generally everything returns to normal. But repeated outbursts of anger are obviously hard on the body. On the other hand, a person may be given to anger but keep things ‘bottled up’ inside himself. Outwardly he may seem very calm, but inwardly he may be in a state of turmoil. When that is the case, he may begin to experience bodily ailments and still deny that emotional disturbances are the cause of his affliction. Anger can thus contribute toward or aggravate a host of ills, including cardiovascular disorders, respiratory ailments, skin diseases, dental and digestive troubles, and headaches.

Besides physical problems, anger can lead to great spiritual harm by causing a person to violate God’s law. Calling attention to this danger, the Bible says: “He that is quick to anger will commit foolishness.” (Prov. 14:17) “As a city broken through, without a wall, is the man that has no restraint for his spirit.” (Prov. 25:28) In ancient times a city with a breached wall was defenseless, open to the invasion of enemy forces. Similarly, the person given to anger makes himself vulnerable to the invasion of improper thoughts, leading to foolish acts.

Just how dangerous anger can be is illustrated in the case of Cain. When he saw God’s favor manifested upon his brother Abel, but not upon himself, Cain became enraged. Though given divine warning, Cain yielded to wrong thinking and murdered his brother.​—Gen. 4:4-8.

Certainly none of us would want to become like Cain, either in attitude or action. So we should strive to keep anger in check (and not listen to some radio host encouraging the venting of anger by setting a bad example, which can influence listeners in a negative way as their buttons are pushed by the one making money off them as he does the bidding of “the ruler of this world”, John 12:31, wittingly or unwittingly, as he satisfies his greed, making millions in the conspiracy entertainment industry or market). This does not mean mere outward control of emotions. Control of anger starts with one’s being able to respond reasonably​—without undue external or internal disturbance—​when confronted with unfavorable situations.

Take the case of a person who is corrected because of being guilty of some neglect or wrong. If he lets pride get in the way, he may become very angry about this. Instead of giving vent to anger, a person should take the reasonable view of the situation. Humility can help a person to keep anger in check. So if we are going to heed the Bible’s counsel to “let anger alone,” we, too, need to cultivate humility.

At times people do and say things to us that are entirely uncalled for. This may upset us very much. What can we do? We do well to consider the motivations of those disturbing us.

Are they deliberately trying to get us angry? If so, we would only be playing into their hands if we were to give way to a fit of anger. Far better it would be to ignore cutting remarks or actions intended to provoke us. The counsel of Jesus Christ would then apply: “Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him.” (Matt. 5:39) A slap on the cheek would not be intended to injure physically but to insult or provoke a fight. Hence, by reacting in kind, a person would only worsen the situation.

But what if the things disturbing us were not said or done with any intent to incite us to anger? In that case, we might reason with ourselves. Are we perhaps making an issue over trifles? Might it not be more loving just to cover over the minor offense?

On the other hand, we may have real basis for being incensed. But should not love move us to want to help the individual involved to avoid giving offense in the future? Christians are counseled: “Be wrathful, and yet do not sin; let the sun not set with you in a provoked state, neither allow place for the Devil.” (Eph. 4:26, 27) If our main objective is to help the person who wronged us to overcome his weakness, we will not harbor anger against him and go beyond the bounds of proper indignation. We will not leave an opening for the Devil to take advantage of our provoked state and incite us to retaliate.

Of course, there are things about which we can do very little. In this imperfect system, many injustices occur. To get all upset about these, perhaps to the point of ruining our health, would certainly benefit no one. Rather, we can take comfort in the Bible-based assurance that God, by means of his kingdom, will end all injustices and oppression. (Dan. 2:44) Meanwhile we can depend upon him to sustain us so as to endure any trial we might face.​—Jas. 1:2-5.

Besides having a balanced view of things that can give rise to anger, our avoiding the company of those given to anger will aid us to maintain self-control. The Bible admonishes: “Do not have companionship with anyone given to anger; and with a man having fits of rage you must not enter in, that you may not get familiar with his paths and certainly take a snare for your soul.”​—Prov. 22:24, 25.

On the other hand, associating with persons of calm and even temper will surely have a wholesome effect on us. Such persons do not incite others to anger by cutting remarks. Their mildness has tremendous power in putting an end to bitter disputing and overcoming stiff opposition. In their case the words of the Bible prove true: “An answer, when mild, turns away rage.” (Prov. 15:1) “One that is slow to anger quiets down quarreling.” (Prov. 15:18) “A mild tongue itself can break a bone.”​—Prov. 25:15.

Truly there are sound reasons for ‘letting anger alone.’ We are benefited both physically and spiritually. May we, therefore, strive not to give occasion for others to get angry, and may we ourselves watch our associations, cultivate humility and continue to take a reasonable, balanced view toward what fellow humans may do or say.

And may we avoid listening to or watching videos of “anyone given to anger”. (Prov. 22:24, 25) Especially when it could all be an act for the money or profits it can generate anyway (in terms of attracting attention, increasing the size of their audience).

originally posted by: 5thHead
...

1.5 BILLION dollars for asking questions is the death of free speech and the end of freedom.

If you're too afraid to ask questions then the gang that runs the show can get away with whatever they want.

What if the questions asked are rhetorical with no genuine desire for an answer, but rather to paint or cast someone or something in a negative light (a paintjob)?

Your comment reminded me of Cartman's imitation of Glenn Beck in that South Park episode.

In another thread I've been commenting in recently on the "Conspiracies in Religions" subforum people were asking those type of questions as well, and then when some of their questions went unanswered (for obvious reasons; even as some questions were answered), started saying things like:

Are you willing to answer any questions? The people of ATS are looking for the truth. Many questions have been asked here, but what we lack are the answers. ... RU doesn’t seem that he likes questions much. Especially the hard ones.

With those "hard ones" he seemed to be referring to those most slanderous, dishonest (untrue/false) and most effective in inciting hatred in their paintjob routine, just like Cartman's rhetorical questions about Wendy in that South Park episode.

And saying things like:

Lots of unanswered questions left to get into if you wish.

Then whenever questions were responded to:

Too little, too late. Testify, preach, or share your belief with someone else, my work here is done.

I gave you every chance, but you are only interested in a one sided conversation with no other input.

That's the Isaiah 5:20 tactic, painting the "bad" that describes one's own atttitude or behaviour on another that is doing "good". In the field of psychology they have a term called "psychological projection", which is somewhat similar to what is said at Isaiah 5:20.

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!” (Isa 5:20,21)

You can tell when someone is asking insincere rhetorical questions that they don't really want addressed, answered or responded to when they say things like (sometimes just after their questions have been addressed, answered or responded to):

Don’t address me again, I really don’t want to talk to you.

So they can then tell others:

Welcome!

Two actual questions, let’s see if you are lucky enough to get answers.

Referring to 2 more insincere rhetorical questions asked by someone else in the thread for the purpose of a negative paintjob. Wanna see more of this game?

Answer the questions you are asked, or look like fool, the choice is yours.

And the other person who asked the other 2 insincere rhetorical questions referred to above, said a little later:

Blue_Jay33, are you keeping track of and submitting your time you are spending here on ATS? Are you a Pioneer?

Let's see if *you* have a pair and actually answer, unlike whereislogic who just puts up walls and walls of twisted NWT scripture that no one reads.

Followed by more paintjob routines.

They will not answer tough questions but prefer to deflect.

Paintjob followed by more paintjobs.

Typical Deflection, never answer the question. You just proved the point I was making.

LOL! No need to respond, in fact please don't.

See, they don't actually want a response, they just want to complain about not getting a response, even when they did get a response, or when that response comes a little later (so they can paint that false/inaccurate negative behavioural picture on someone else, as they never, or hardly ever answer any sincere questions asked of them themselves, and on those rare occasions that they do, at least not honestly). At which point they contradict themselves again and say they don't want a response. Insincere rhetorical questions, just like Eric Cartman in that South Park episode.

These comments were taken from the thread: "The Truth about the Jehovah Witness". The persons I've been quoting, one was the OP, have no intention to share any truths about Jehovah's Witnesses, that's not what the thread is for, just another lie (which is what an insincere rhetorical question in the style of Eric Cartman is as well). But the thread is a pretty good demonstration of slander, false accusations, negative paintjobs and lies in the form of insincere rhetorical questions (not always in that form, other examples can be found in that thread as well from the same posters).

Be on your guard that some radio host or entertainer (with conspiracy theories) isn't doing the same when they are 'just asking questions'. Of course, just like those posters above in that thread, Alex Jones is doing a little more than just asking questions. Just like them, he's got quite a bit more rhetoric up his sleeve (and not everything is phrased in the form of a question, rhetorical and insincere or otherwise). With which he desires to attract attention (for financial or other personal gain). Which, just as in the case of the posters quoted above, is often laced with lies, inaccuracies, half-truths and propaganda playing on the emotions (see article linked below for details and the subsequent page linked in my signature), and thus plays into the cards of "the father of the lie" (John 8:44) and "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31), and consequently rewarded by him, "the god of this system of things" (2 Cor 4:4) "who is miseading the entire inhabited earth" (Rev 12:9). As only he can because he's pulling all the strings in this system of things and because he's in the position to make many people like a person who does his bidding*, wittingly or unwittingly. (*: and pay attention to this person, taking that person seriously, trusting that person, making people think this person has something of value or importance to say, that he or she is worthy of listening to or taking your information from. So we're talking social gain here rather than financial.)

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

... This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

...

Some emotions discussed in the section "Playing on the Emotions" are: pride, hatred (related to anger, see my previous comment about that emotion as well) and fear. All 3 buttons pushed (or 4 if you count anger) by Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Eric Cartman (in that specific episode) and the posters I've been quoting in this comment (without mentioning them by name, which is easy to find out, but it's better to be able to recognize the type and the style of their commentary, or so-called "questions").

Steve Bannon won’t be spending his prison term in a ‘Club Fed’ as he had hoped, sources say

When former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon goes to prison, he won’t be serving time at what’s known as a “Club Fed,” the most comfortable type of facility in the federal system, as he had wanted, according to people familiar with the arrangements.

Instead of a minimum-security prison camp, where many nonviolent offenders serve their time, Bannon – now a right-wing podcaster with a following of loyal Trump supporters – is set to report next month to the low-security federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut, one of the sources told CNN.

A federal judge ruled recently that Bannon must turn himself in by July 1 to begin serving a four-month sentence for contempt of Congress even as he appeals the case.

With how CNN got notice when Roger Stone got arrested, maybe this is how it will play out for Steve Bannon. Time will tell.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: kwaka

You seem confused as to what Jones was sued for. It had nothing to do with censoring speech. Did you watch the whole trial?

He lied about Sandy Hook for profit and got caught up in his own lies. The accusations he made against the families and loved ones of the victims were about as sick as a human being can be and he did it knowing he was lying. I know he's good at tricking people into believing lies, but that has not a damn thing to do with anyone's Right to Free Speech.

Those parents were already suffering and along came a carnival barker hawking his mostly worthless snake oil products by lying about people who were mourning their children, slaughtered by a monster. I equate Jones with the shooter. Two sides of the same coin.

I'm a huge supporter of Free Speech, but what exactly does that have to do with knowingly telling lies for money while at the same time doing great harm to those already in pain?

That rant is so vague as to have no meaning.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Remember and learn from the past or be doomed to repeat it.

Sound advice for Alex Jones to follow really.

As to the Martin Niemöller spiel that's all very well.

But i dont really see what it has to do with the fact that Jones falsely claimed that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, or that the the parents of the dead children were crisis actors.

Were you there? How do you know what happened if you weren't there?

Cheers - Dave

INFOWARS FINAL DAYS: Alex Jones shall OVERCOME the satanic assault on truth, freedom and liberty

A Federal Judge has ordered that Alex has to auction off all of his business assists and intellectual property, including his website domain names, trademarks, copyrights including the rights to all the videos he has created and social media account on X.

The auction is set to take place on November 13th, about a week after the election. The studio equipment is set for auction on December 10th.

Alex Jones Sets The Record Straight With Infowars Auction

They can't actually win.
So, Jones loses Infowars and his Infowars X account.
He just opens an X account his in own name and continues to podcast.
He will get millions of followers.
Or he just gets someone else to start a new business and takes a salary.
I am assuming that not even in America, the most backward country on earth, can they actually enslave the guy for life.

originally posted by: kwaka

Reminds me of the ending to George Orwell's 1984.