1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Alex Jones sued by Sandy Hook parents

Discussion in 'Law' started by Curious George, Apr 17, 2018.

  1. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,261
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Before there was love, there was silence
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    30,124
    Ratings:
    +15,258
    Religion:
    Christian (Anglo-Catholic)
    Suing the hateful nutters is the least they deserve. I hope they win.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  3. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    48,186
    Ratings:
    +20,245
    Religion:
    Love
    Good. I hope they clean his clock and then some.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    32,713
    Ratings:
    +19,194
    Religion:
    Atheist
    A million dollars is too low of a reward to seek in this case.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    27,920
    Ratings:
    +9,447
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian
    Wow. That's pretty low down.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    73,481
    Ratings:
    +33,366
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    I'm not sure I understand you. What's low down? Alex Jone's defaming the parents, or the parents fighting their defamation?
     
  7. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,058
    Ratings:
    +11,903
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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
    .
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    31,428
    Ratings:
    +14,173
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    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.
     
  10. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    27,920
    Ratings:
    +9,447
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian
    Clarification: Alex Jone's defamation is low down.
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    32,713
    Ratings:
    +19,194
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The rub is that "damage" may be rather difficult to prove. The rest are a slam dunk.
     
  12. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    73,481
    Ratings:
    +33,366
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    I guess that's up to the courts.
     
  13. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    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.

    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.
     
  14. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,255
    Ratings:
    +1,796
    Religion:
    Something else
    God, I hope they clean him out.
     
  15. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    31,428
    Ratings:
    +14,173
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    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.
     
  16. Epic Beard Man

    Epic Beard Man Bearded Philosopher

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,687
    Ratings:
    +3,561
    Religion:
    Agnostic-Monotheist
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  17. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    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.
     
  18. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    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.)
     
  19. Epic Beard Man

    Epic Beard Man Bearded Philosopher

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,687
    Ratings:
    +3,561
    Religion:
    Agnostic-Monotheist
    LOL TY kindly
     
  20. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    31,428
    Ratings:
    +14,173
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    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.
     
    #20 metis, Apr 20, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2018
Loading...