Infowars fighting attempted shutdown

a reply to: frogs453

To a billion dollar judgement?

Youre always on the laughable side of the argument.

a reply to: kwaka

If that's what you get from this whole Alex Jones thing you're so far gone it isn't even funny.

a reply to: kwaka

he was telling lies about the family on his show while the case was happening. It doesn't matter what he says he belives now. He always believed it happened how it happened, but chose to make money off of dead kids instead.

a reply to: TipToeDrifter

By your logic every media corp is ripe for suit.

By your logic it need not even be proven.

By your logic allegations are enough for judgements that meet no requirement for dollar amount.


And that logic is illogical.


Remember when AJ was just a crazy nut? Not worth listening to?

These judgements validate everything he says. Pick your position ......

Hey, I've got an idea!

Maybe Trump should pick Alex Jones as his running mate and VP!

75% of the left would have a mass-aneurysms screaming at the sky or jumping off a buildings.

Their campaign slogan could be - "35 Felony Death Punch"

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Press secretary

It can be his calling and his punishment.

Would that be cruel and unusual punishment?

a reply to: UKTruth

The answer to your question lies in the opening statement of your post.

It's easy to dislike Jones therefore justify anything bad happening to him.

It takes one or two extra braincells to understand that if they can do such things to Jones, they can do it to anyone else.

We are surrounded by people who cannot think past their emotions.

a reply to: JinMI

I'm on the laughable side of the argument? You should discuss the dollar amount with the jury who decided it. If a jury gave you a billion, I'm not going to whine, as I said. Whoever did you wrong has to face the consequence of their actions. Personal responsibility right?

As for the case itself, you feel that a man who lied to make money and get views, causing years worth of horrible harassment to families that had young children murdered for just going to school, is just practicing his "free speech" and there should be no repercussions. OK then. Explains a lot.

All I hear time and time again, "they're going to do this to you too!" Yeah if you break the law or do something to be sued civilly. Even then there's this thing called evidence and trials and a jury.

"Law and order!" " Back the blue!" Right?

a reply to: frogs453

Even then there's this thing called evidence and trials and a jury.

Which Jones was denied in Texas and Connecticut.

I'm on the laughable side of the argument?

Yes. As evidenced here again by you explaining exactly how every corporate media company makes money to this day.

a reply to: JinMI

You keep saying that, but cannot cite a case in which there are multiple victims repeatedly lied about for years continuing the abuse. I originally told you I was open to hearing about it. You provided nothing.

You're sure about Jones was denied presenting evidence?

Alex Jones decided not present any defense Wednesday at his defamation trial in Connecticut

AP

Conspiracy theorist and media personality Alex Jones was confronted with several pieces of evidence Wednesday that contradicted his own testimony during his defamation trial, where the parents of a 6-year-old killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting are suing him after he claimed the massacre was staged.

Texas Tribune

The only argument over evidence was his defense not wanting the prosecution to show certain Infowars videos.
WesternSlope

a reply to: frogs453

You keep saying that, but cannot cite a case in which there are multiple victims repeatedly lied about for years continuing the abuse. I originally told you I was open to hearing about it. You provided nothing.

Your framing is very much wrong. It wasn't long that Jones commented on such.

Regardless, if the bar for this level of judgement is as you suggest then we can unequivocally apply it to all of MSM with every mass shooting.

You're sure about Jones was denied presenting evidence?

Yes, as evidenced by two directed verdicts.

Watching you make exceptions to your espoused values is nothing new.

It's typical hack behavior

a reply to: TipToeDrifter

He always believed it happened how it happened, but chose to make money off of dead kids instead.

I disagree. With what I have seen with Alex, he calls it is as he sees it. He has gotten things wrong before and does admit to it when he makes mistakes. Alex is aware that the government will sanction murder and bring in crisis actors to push an agenda, 9/11 is one example.

With how a similar event in Australia lead to disarming much of the nation, Alex was worried about the effect this event would have on the Second Amendment. Alex was not the only person thinking like this, but with his audience he was the loudest.

From what I can gather, appears his business revenues remained consistent during this time. If he made a little more or lost a little more, I don't know. The main motivator I see for why Alex took the approach he did was in defending the right to bear arms against a state that does operate by covert means at times.

Getting it wrong the way he did, I think it is fair that some compensation is due. As for where to draw that line? Looks more like a political takedown.

a reply to: frogs453

You keep saying that, but cannot cite a case in which there are multiple victims repeatedly lied about for years continuing the abuse. I originally told you I was open to hearing about it. You provided nothing.

I am also open to hearing about any other cases that have a $1 Billion judgment and what level of pain and suffering was involved with that. As one that does support the penalties put against Alex, do you know of any similar cases? So far it looks like an outlier and not consistent with usual judicial practice.

a reply to: kwaka

I am also open to hearing about any other cases that have a $1 Billion judgment and what level of pain and suffering was involved with that.

Well, I can give you one in support of your argument, but it just further illustrates just how out of whack the verdict against Jones is.

This would be 2002 case against Phillip-Morris in which an LA jury awarded the plaintiff's $28 billion. But in that case many of the plaintiffs and/or their families actually either died or suffered irreparable physical injuries as a result of alleged lies by PM. It certainly wasn't because some little meanie on alt-media hurt their feelings. So, you can see the incomprehensible break with reality in the Jones case verdict. Nobody died, got terminal cancer, or coughed up a lung from Jones' ramblings. Not even close.