"It is my understanding that the First Amendment provides no restrictions on what I'm allowed to question publicly or privately."
He literally doesn't have to say anything else.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
If it can be said in 20 words, it's not for Alex Jones. I truly wish that man would slow down a bit and think before he speaks. Maybe you should send him that one sentence because that's exactly what he should do.
If I knew how, I would. I'm blown away his lawyer hasn't thought of something similar.
Or, during discovery he should've subpoenaed the receipts for the school for the last several years before the "shooting".
But, he's a blow hard so he's gonna go off. But I agree with you.
Can he sue the federal govt and MSM for the same thing?
I think this is exposing some more corrupt judiciary.
You do realize that "free speech" doesn't protect you from defamation, right? That's why defamation laws exists: to protect you from a random person lying about you for money.
Jones was already found libel on all 4 cases, so the trials are just to figure out how much money he has to pay back.
Questioning a narrative isn't defamation. You can always say you suspect someone of something without stating it. If Alex Jones stated factually that the families were faking it without evidence then yes, he could be sued for defamation. Is that what's happening here? Because you can't blame a man for asking the question.
Have you not watched the trials? He's not being sued for "questioning a narrative."
He's being sued for making money off of stories that, beyond being false, have literally caused harassment of families with constant death threats, causing them to move multiple times. It's an unimaginably horrible thing.
Again, Jones has already been found libel, so I'm not sure why you're bothering defending him. Just watch the trials, it's all there.
No, I haven't. But I don't need to in order to form an opinion on what should and should not be legally allowed to say. To say that you suspect these families were in on the false flag, when you do suspect them to be in on it, is protected speech. If others choose, based on these musings, to harass or threaten that family, that's on them. We're not allowed to threaten violence against people in this country, but we are allowed to muse out loud, to voice our suspicions about people publicly and privately, to investigate/research, and to encourage others to do so. If others take your musings as facts and behave illegally, that's on them, not you.
If in fact Alex can be proven to have reported his suspicions as verified facts, then yes, I think a case can be made against him. But we don't punish people for thinking out loud, whether they make money on their musings or not, because others take our thoughts and commit acts of violence against others. Or threaten acts of violence against others. You've apparently watched the trial. I haven't. If his actions meet that standard, fine. If not, it's protected speech. Pure and simple.
Yes, actually you do, because the prosecution explains how defamation falls outside of free speech.
"Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly — typically via the news media — and claiming that it's true. An opinion can't be defamatory. The statement also must have done actual damage to someone's reputation."
The parents suing Jones say his lies about their child's death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones' followers.
Just think about it from a local level. If someone in your neighborhood started spreading rumors that you're a convict/pedo/rapist, and then suddenly you're fired from your job and your public persona is ruined forever, wouldn't you seek justice? That's why defamation laws exist. When lies lead to actual damages, it's not "thinking out loud" anymore.
I feel like you responded to my first few sentences and ignored the rest of my reply, too eager to reply yourself. I'm aware of what constitutes defamation, and I think it should be punishable, I'm merely questioning whether what Jones did rises to that level.
I only responded to the first part because you said this, which is exactly what the trial shows, so there isn't really a need for me to explain anything beyond that. I understand where you are coming from though.
Where does it say in the 1st amendment that it doesn’t cover defamation? That’s a liberal construct. Only snowflakes complain about being defamed. The 1st amendment, as the founders envisaged it, was to be pure and absolute.
You do realize that an amendment is an update to the constitution, right? Look up the definition of amendment.
Meaning that... no, the constitution was not supposed to be pure and absolute, it was meant to be amended. Thomas Jefferson even said that the constitution should be periodically updated to reflect the times (something that has yet to happen).
Correct, it is supposed to be a living document. You have rights to do many things that we can't really imagine. But with those rights come responsibility. That is one reason insurance became popular, if you injure another person, you are responsible for all cost to that person's life and you can not violate someone else's rights either.
Defamation to me would be lying about someone. Not musing. In order for it to be a lie you must know it's not true. It's a form of fraud. If you suspect someone is involved in a conspiracy there's nothing wrong with stating that suspicion and what makes you think that way. If you know it's not true, or you give weight to your suspicion by citing a source that doesn't actually exist or something like that, then yeah, I'm ok with people seeking damages for defamation.
That said, having not watched this trial and the evidence presented, I really have no opinion on how this trial should go. My post presumes that Alex was merely musing. If he wasn't, then yeah, I think the families could have a legitimate case.