Alex Jones sued by Sandy Hook parents

[Curious George]

Is there anyone who thinks this is a frivolous lawsuit. I sincerely hope that these parents win. I would only hope that all the other parents joined in the suit.


Sandy Hook parents sue radio host Alex Jones for defamation

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Suing the hateful nutters is the least they deserve. I hope they win.

 

[sun rise]

Good. I hope they clean his clock and then some.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there anyone who thinks this is a frivolous lawsuit. I sincerely hope that these parents win. I would only hope that all the other parents joined in the suit.


Sandy Hook parents sue radio host Alex Jones for defamation

A million dollars is too low of a reward to seek in this case.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Wow. That's pretty low down.

 

[Sunstone]

Wow. That's pretty low down.

I'm not sure I understand you. What's low down? Alex Jone's defaming the parents, or the parents fighting their defamation?

 

[Skwim]

Unless some kind of substantial harm can be shown (more than hurt feelings) the parents don't appear to have a chance.

Civil defamation
Although laws vary by state, in the United States a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant:

1. made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
2. shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and
4. caused damages to the plaintiff.
   Source: Wikipedia

.

 

[Nous]

Is there anyone who thinks this is a frivolous lawsuit.

No, this isn't a frivolous lawsuit. Far from it.

The claims asserted by Jones/InfoWars about the plaintiffs being actors involved in heinous criminal conduct, including the claim that the Pozner child “die[d] (again)” in a school attack in Pakistan in 2015, clearly amount to defamation per se, for which damages are presumed.

Other than this, I cannot imagine finding a jury that would be unsympathetic to the anguish that these parents have suffered as a result of Jones'/InfoWars' claims that their personal experiences with their slaughtered children are total fabrications, a giant illegal hoax perpetrated upon the public.

The claims of Jones/InfoWars cannot be innocent errors where they tried to discover and report the truth about these events, the parents and their children; they can only be claims that were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard of the truth, and therefore constitute actual malice. For instance, according to the complaint, in an NBC interview in June 2017 Mr. Heslin stated, “I lost my son. I buried my son. I held my son with a bullet hole through his head.” Days later, InfoWars broadcast a segment where a reporter claimed Mr. Heslin's statement “cannot be accurate,” and “that is not possible,” making such claims solely on the grounds that the slain children were initially identified using photographs rather than by the parents in person. InfoWars and the reporter could easily have discovered that soon after the initial identifications parents were allowed to see and hold their children.

I'd say these parents have an excellent case of defamation and defamation per se.

 

[metis]

As much as I would like to see the parents win from an emotional point of view (mine), I doubt it will because because it doesn't fall under a "personal attack" situation. IOW, "harm" has to be established, but speaking out politically, even with some negative effects, only rarely is found to be a violation of one's rights.

IOW, the courts do not tend to rule against free speech unless it was said with harm clearly being the intent.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not sure I understand you. What's low down? Alex Jone's defaming the parents, or the parents fighting their defamation?

Clarification: Alex Jone's defamation is low down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless some kind of substantial harm can be shown (more than hurt feelings) the parents don't appear to have a chance.

Civil defamation
Although laws vary by state, in the United States a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant:

1. made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
2. shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and
4. caused damages to the plaintiff.
   Source: Wikipedia

.

The rub is that "damage" may be rather difficult to prove. The rest are a slam dunk.

 

[Sunstone]

Clarification: Alex Jone's defamation is low down.

I guess that's up to the courts.

 

[Nous]

As much as I would like to see the parents win from an emotional point of view (mine), I doubt it will because because it doesn't fall under a "personal attack" situation.

What the hell is "a 'personal attack' situation"?

I am unaware that the basic elements that define defamation have been changed in any state recently. These are those basic elements:

1. Someone made a statement;
2. The statement was published;
3. The statement caused you injury;
4. The statement was false; and
5. The statement did not fall into a privileged category.

IOW, "harm" has to be established, but speaking out politically, even with some negative effects, only rarely is found to be a violation of one's rights.

IOW, the courts do not tend to rule against free speech unless it was said with harm clearly being the intent.

I don't know what any of this is supposed to mean. Do any of your claims here about what courts "rarely" do or "do not tend" to do have any basis in fact?

Jones has not been engaging in "political speech" by accusing the plaintiffs in this suit of perpetrating a massive illegal fraud where someone supposedly gunned down their children but these people are just actors and none of it happened, no children were killed, and, in fact, one child even "died again" in Pakistan a couple of years later.

The intent of the claims asserted by Jones/InfoWars is certainly actual malice, and the accusations of criminal activity that Jones/InforWars assert the plaintiffs have engaged in constitute defamation per se, for which damages are presumed. The plaintiffs additionally allege defamation per quod, and can likely prove their damages for their pain and anguish as a result of being accused of such hideous falsehoods as Jones has publicized about them.

 

[Yerda]

God, I hope they clean him out.

 

[metis]

What the hell is "a 'personal attack' situation"?

IOW, in most cases there has to be a direct link.

For example, if I say something that upsets you, and then you turn around out of your anger and shoot your wife, the chances of I getting convicted on some charge is likely to happen, regardless as to whether I told the truth or not.

Convicting someone for what one says that may offend someone else is a pretty difficult challenge because this country cherishes free speech. Just because I may tell a lie that may upset you doesn't mean that I'm likely to get convicted for being an accomplice to your murdering your wife out of your anger.

Or let's say I give a public speech whereas I say that all white people are the products of Satan, and then some go out and start shooting white people, I'm not likely to get convicted for saying that. OTOH, if I tell people to go out and start shooting white people, or implying as such, then the chances of me being convicted can be quite high, but not likely on a homicide charge.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I have a co-worker who believes this Jones guy and when I showed him the news article of the lawsuit he says:

"well, I guess the Sandy Hook shootings did happen."

Scary that I work with this guy and he is a "professional" social worker.

 

[Nous]

IOW, in most cases there has to be a direct link.

For example, if I say something that upsets you, and then you turn around out of your anger and shoot your wife, the chances of I getting convicted on some charge is likely to happen, regardless as to whether I told the truth or not.

Convicting someone for what one says that may offend someone else is a pretty difficult challenge because this country cherishes free speech. Just because I may tell a lie that may upset you doesn't mean that I'm likely to get convicted for being an accomplice to your murdering your wife out of your anger.

Or let's say I give a public speech whereas I say that all white people are the products of Satan, and then some go out and start shooting white people, I'm not likely to get convicted for saying that. OTOH, if I tell people to go out and start shooting white people, or implying as such, then the chances of me being convicted can be quite high, but not likely on a homicide charge.

I don't think you've understood what defamation is, much less defamation per se. I was actually asking for sources or the case law from which you've gotten your ideas here.

From the FindLaw page I linked to above on defamation per se:

Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore defamatory per se. Typically, if the statements do not fall into one of these categories the plaintiff is required to prove his damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed. The four general categories are:

• Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity
• Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease
• Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
• Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession

Obviously Jones/InfoWars have repeatedly alleged that the plaintiffs in this suit are perpetrating a huge illegal fraud.

Be sure to read the complaint brought against Jones/InfoWars.

 

[Nous]

I have a co-worker who believes this Jones guy and when I showed him the news article of the lawsuit he says:

"well, I guess the Sandy Hook shootings did happen."

Scary that I work with this guy and he is a "professional" social worker.

Well, at least he's willing to acknowledge now that there was a shooting. Apparently he's one step ahead of a few people in that regard.

(BTW, that is an epic beard.)

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Well, at least he's willing to acknowledge now that there was a shooting. Apparently he's one step ahead of a few people in that regard.

(BTW, that is an epic beard.)

LOL TY kindly

 

[metis]

I don't think you've understood what defamation is, much less defamation per se.

I taught a political science course for around 25 years, so I know what I'm talking about In general, and I don't need any sarcastic and condescending remarks from you. A lawyer I am not, so I certainly don't know all the ins & outs of the law, but neither do I have any desire to continue this conversation with you.