• 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 to pay 49.3 million in Sandy Hook civil case.

74x12

Well-Known Member
Wow, just wow! That is how conspiracy theories work, by gum.

Who sued him? The "system?" Or the parents? Can you show some evidence that the "system" recruited those parents to do their dirty work in "getting Alex Jones?" Or did you just make that up? And the jurors -- and the judge -- were they slyly recruited by "the system?" Got any evidence for that canard?
The evidence is in your face. The obvious bias of the trial and the judge. The whole show is a joke. If you can't see it then you're clueless or else you don't want to see it. Or you don't know enough about the topic to even judge correctly for yourself.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Actually it's legal to yell fire in a theater. If there is a fire.

Jones was justifiably punished with 4 million payed to the families.

So when did additional punitive measures become to the point in society to where its essentially now 12 times on top of an orginal award?

Punitive Damages and the Eighth Amendment: An Analytical Framework for Determining Excessiveness on JSTOR
Links don't do you any good by themselves. It is up to you to quote the applicable parts of those articles. Once again, there is nothing about punitive judgements themselves that make them unconstitutional. You would need to show that this is excessive. Do you really think that you can do that?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The evidence is in your face. The obvious bias of the trial and the judge. The whole show is a joke. If you can't see it then you're clueless or else you don't want to see it. Or you don't know enough about the topic to even judge correctly for yourself.
I can just as easily claim that he was guilty without any evidence as you just did.

Please support your claim.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It did cross my mind to wonder if the defence lawyers sent this material to the other side, without comment or caveat, not by accident but in order to put themselves in the clear. Is that possible?
It could be. It would not be the first time that lawyers defending someone that they knew was a monster punted the case.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
They can claim privilege for any evidence. All it means is that whatever it is it cannot be introduced as evidence at trial. For example if a third party debt collector sues Jim for an old credit card debt, and Jim challenges the claim and it goes to the discovery process, Jim would ask for the contract and bill of sale for the alleged debt from the original credit card company TO the third party debt company. If they admit to having the contract, but refuse to share it due to privilege, then the debt collector can't prove they own the debt, thus they can't show standing to sue Jim, case dismissed. The contract would end the relationship between the original creditor to the buyer, and no more documents will be supplied. So even if standing is established, the amount of money claimed could be challenged. If they don't have original documents, how do they rove how much is owed? Also these contracts would then be public record and the debt collectors don't want them available to the public for review and defense.

But if there is evidence in text messages that are not part of the lawyer/client interaction, and they claim privilege, that could be challenged and reviewed by the court. This is part of the ethics. In Jim's case the privilege claim helped him, so he won't challenge it. But in the Jones case the text messages showed Jones had consciousness of guilt and that helped the defense. So there is an ethical obligation to share the messages. If there were attorney/client messages they could be redacted. You can't withhold all texts if some are relevant to the case.
And please note. The side suing Alex told the attorneys from the other side that they got sent everything off of Jones's phone and they did nothing about it. They may have been able to claim privilege for parts of that document but did not do so. That meant that they could not object when it was introduced as evidence and they did not complain.

If an attorney willingly helps a client with their lies there can be punishments for that. Perhaps that is why they said nothing when they sent it. They knew that they could have been in trouble once they found out that Jones was lying. By making Jones's lies public they did not violate any of the canons of the court.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Censorship by economy.

There was no censorship. He said what he wanted to say and is free to say it again.

Alex is a nutball but silencing people because they don't like him is authoritarian.

He wasn't silenced.

And yes, the law is authoritative. Prisons are authoritarian. Break the law, and this can be anybody's fate.

You remind me of the anti-vaxxers who were crying tyranny at being "forced" to take a vaccine. Never happened. Everybody who wanted to was free to refuse the vaccine and still is.

What exactly does that damage entail?

I guess that you haven't been following the case at all. Even if all you saw was the recent news, you'd know the answer to that.

So the standard going rate is 49.3 million for defamation and slander these days?

No. It would be less for you, presuming that you don't have $50 million.

extravagant awards in addition to another already settled award just sets a precedent as a legal lever for censorship on whomever people deemed as being not likable or hated.

I'm good with the precedent. It's a good first start to dealing with these people. I'd like to see Trump held accountable for the Big Lie, and everybody who repeated it for him. Calculate the damages to the nation and make them pay for it, including punitive damages that hurt. They're not really punitive if they don't.

The 4 million I'm OK with. That was the verdict made.

No, the verdict was for close to $50 million, and that's just the first of three families that will receive such an award. I don't see how the next two verdicts can contain punitive damages less than $45 million. That number is based on ability to pay.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
It's about stifling questions. Don't question things or you end up like Alex Jones. It's about shutting down the freedom of press and freedom of speech.

Questioning things could offend people so keep your mouth shut or you'll be on trial.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
It's about stifling questions. Don't question things or you end up like Alex Jones. It's about shutting down the freedom of press and freedom of speech.

Questioning things could offend people so keep your mouth shut or you'll be on trial.

This has nothing to do with offending people. This is about creating a situation where people are in danger and need to move several times and hire private security.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It's out of control. The amounts have been increasing ever higher and higher and is breaching on 8th amendment protections.
Defamation, slander and libel are things you can be punished for according to the law. And such punishments should not be a hard flat rate but consider the offending party's ability to pay when weighing against the damages done. If someone can't pay then it just can't be paid and it's pointless and dumb to put someone in jail over, which only ensures the situation is exacerbated.
But Alex Jones is wealthy. And he didn't just tell a lie, he told an especially heinous lie that did defame people and put their safety at risk. Yes, all he did was speak, but his words lead the other people being endangered and traumatized as a result. So he definitely does have the means to pay for the destruction he wrought. It could end InfoWars, but it wouldn't end him.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
You remind me of the anti-vaxxers who were crying tyranny at being "forced" to take a vaccine. Never happened. Everybody who wanted to was free to refuse the vaccine and still is.
More reminds me when they wail and scream and gnash their teeth over social media censorship, which basically does amount to them throwing a colossal ***** fit over having the rules applied to them.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
More reminds me when they wail and scream and gnash their teeth over social media censorship, which basically does amount to them throwing a colossal ***** fit over having the rules applied to them.
Honestly it’s kind of embarrassing to witness, from the other side of the pond.
I mean it’s grown adults throwing temper tantrums like they’re 2
I’ve seen several people claim it’s a “victim hood/martyr complex” and I’d have to agree.
To be persecuted is treated like a badge of honour and one that’s seemingly highly sought after

I used to say similar extremely dumb things until I bothered to employ critical thinking and get out of that headspace. And indeed it’s a pretty bad headspace to be in. Downright toxic, ngl.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
To be persecuted is treated like a badge of honour and one that’s seemingly highly sought after
Definitely. They think the world hates them because the "love" Jesus and they long and yearn and crave and desire martyrdom.
And it doesn't have to travel from village to village for the lizard to become a dragon. On their own the turn the absolute nothing of having the rules they agreed to applied to them into the Beast of the Apocalypse.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Definitely. They think the world hates them because the "love" Jesus and they long and yearn and crave and desire martyrdom.
And it doesn't have to travel from village to village for the lizard to become a dragon. On their own the turn the absolute nothing of having the rules they agreed to applied to them into the Beast of the Apocalypse.
Yeah….
I do note the overdramatic tone is consistent among such folks

I used to just assume that this was based on how fervently and highly regarded the first amendment is for Americans, in general.
But with your conservatives in particular it does become a bit weird to witness, ngl

In the online circles I run in, those folks are often labeled as “chuds.”
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
No and no.

I think that freedom of speech is necessary for a free society.
Yet broad freedoms require the citizen to be responsible in tat usage. It doesn't mean you can say anything you damn well please when it harms people. All rights have limits, and that is the responsible use versus harmful use. Jones crossed the line and he was sued and lost in court.

And as for what is a lie or isn't. You can only determine that for yourself.
What jones lied about were demonstrable facts, and his audience was willing to be duped by him. Jones knew this apparently yet made money on these lies. The lies ended up causing harm to the families who lost children. That isn't a responsible use of freedom.

But go ahead and keep shooting holes in your own boat. Pretty soon you'll be sinking. Freedom of speech requires that some people be offended sometimes. You'd agree with that sentiment if it was speech that favored what you believe in. But you don't agree with it when it's something you find repugnant.
This isn't about being offended. Jones used speech to make money and as a result caused harm to innocent families. He knew this and did not care. That is an abuse of rights and civil responsibility. He was sued and he lost.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It's about stifling questions. Don't question things or you end up like Alex Jones. It's about shutting down the freedom of press and freedom of speech.

Questioning things could offend people so keep your mouth shut or you'll be on trial.
Rubbish. Question everything you like. Just don't make up lies and pretend they're truth -- that's very different from asking questions.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It's about stifling questions. Don't question things or you end up like Alex Jones. It's about shutting down the freedom of press and freedom of speech.

Questioning things could offend people so keep your mouth shut or you'll be on trial.
It's more that the questions and perspectives Alex Jones provides are ones that crawl out of his *** and are less based on reality than Game of Thrones.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
You may find it distasteful, or even egregiously wrong. And no doubt, there are a bunch of idiots who may have caused harm because of his act because they lack the ability to discern.

But.
This guy: alex jones in a frog suit - Google Search


Is running a bit. Is not a serious person.

But folks take him seriously. Was this comedy or meant to be taken seriously:


Jones is clearly a charlatan, and if he is meant to be a comedian, he is doing a terrible job at distinguishing his comedy from his serious commentary (as dumb as it is). His "comedy," which appears an awful lot like purposefully misinforming folks for profit, is detrimental to a country where Democratic ideals are written into our Constitution.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Rubbish. Question everything you like. Just don't make up lies and pretend they're truth -- that's very different from asking questions.
Rubbish is what you just said. You would have to prove that someone had intentionally lied and not just been mistaken which people often are. So your idea of prosecuting mistakes is rubbish. You see you can't win regulating people's freedom of speech.
 
Top