"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.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
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.