BREAKING: Deep State Attempted To Shut Down Infowars Headquarters Last Night

BREAKING: Deep State Attempted To Shut Down Infowars Headquarters Last Night​

​

Feds Trying to FRAME Alex Jones and SHUT DOWn InfoWars! This is Biden America! Viva Frei Rant​

Alex Jones agrees to liquidate his assets to pay Sandy Hook families, in move that would end his ownership of Infowars​

searcher said:

Alex Jones agrees to liquidate his assets to pay Sandy Hook families, in move that would end his ownership of Infowars

Click to expand...

Alex Jones’ personal assets will be sold to help pay Sandy Hook debt​

pmbug said:

Speech can be free, but that doesn't mean it is consequence free. If your speech damages others, they may seek redress. Running ones mouth always entails risk.

Were the courts (or specifically the judgements) fair? Maybe. Maybe not. AJ didn't really help himself win over a jury.

On the Hook: Jury’s Hefty Defamation Award Against Alex Jones

In this article, Hailey Martin discusses the infamous Alex Jones and his recent defamation suit where the jury awarded plaintiffs nearly $1 billion in damages. The article explores the lack of a de…

uclawreview.org

Click to expand...

pmbug said:

Speech can be free, but that doesn't mean it is consequence free. If your speech damages others, they may seek redress. Running ones mouth always entails risk.

Were the courts (or specifically the judgements) fair? Maybe. Maybe not. AJ didn't really help himself win over a jury.

On the Hook: Jury’s Hefty Defamation Award Against Alex Jones

In this article, Hailey Martin discusses the infamous Alex Jones and his recent defamation suit where the jury awarded plaintiffs nearly $1 billion in damages. The article explores the lack of a de…

uclawreview.org

Click to expand...

Voodoo said:

The world has never had a shortage of loud mouths. Suing them for Billions of dollars is new.

Click to expand...

foolsgold said:

So you think anybody can say anything with no restrictions whatsoever?

Click to expand...

Voodoo said:

Yes, I call it Free Speech.

Click to expand...

Defamation laws protect people whose careers, reputations, finances and/or health have been damaged by untrue, harmful statements. However, defamation law often intersects with laws protecting the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

So, just as it's important to protect people from the harms that untrue statements may cause, it's necessary to protect the right to speak freely and without fear of reprisal. In this article we'll take a closer look at this delicate balance that can make its way to the forefront of a civil lawsuit for defamation.

What Is a Protected Opinion?

If the defendant can prove the statement he or she made was true, the defamation case ends there. People cannot be punished for speaking the truth, no matter how ugly or embarrassing it may be. Truth is always a defense to a claim of defamation.

Opinions, however, are murkier territory. Statements of opinion generally receive protection under the First Amendment. The question then becomes, what is an opinion? Is it usually sufficient for a speaker to preface a statement (one that might otherwise be considered defamatory) with the words "I think" or "In my opinion"?

The answer, of course, is no. People cannot say whatever they want and get protection for their comments by tacking on a couple of qualifying words. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that a statement is an opinion that merits protection when it is (1) about a matter of public concern, (2) expressed in a way that makes it hard to prove whether it is true or false, and (3) can't be reasonably interpreted to be a factual statement about someone. (The Supreme Court case is Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990).)

To apply this test, courts usually consider several factors, such as the manner in which the harmful statement was made.

• Did the speaker use figurative or hyperbolic language, making it hard to view the statement as an expression of fact?
• If the statement is published in print or online, what was its overall context?
• Would the context make it hard for a reader to think the writer was conveying a fact?

...

Click to expand...

...
WHY IS HIS TRIAL DIFFERENT?

Jones seemed to sabotage his own chance to fully argue that his speech was protected by not complying with orders to hand over critical evidence, such as emails, which the parents hoped would prove he knew all along that his statements were false.

That led exasperated Judge Maya Guerra Gamble to enter a rare default judgment, declaring the parents winners before the trial even began.

Judges in other lawsuits against Jones have issued similar rulings.

“I don’t know why they didn’t cooperate,” said Stephen D. Solomon, a founding editor of New York University’s First Amendment Watch. “It is just really peculiar. ... It’s so odd to not even give yourself the chance to defend yourself.”

It might suggest Jones knew certain evidence would doom his defense.

“It is reasonable to presume that (Jones) and his team did not think they had a viable defense ... or they would have complied,” said Barry Covert, a Buffalo, New York, First Amendment lawyer.

HAVE BOTH SIDES REFERRED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Yes. During opening statements last week, plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Bankston told jurors it doesn’t protect defamatory speech.

“Speech is free,” he said, “but lies you have to pay for.”

Jones’ lawyer Andino Reynal said the case is crucial to free speech.

And Jones made similar arguments in a deposition.

“If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it might hurt somebody’s feelings, we are not in America anymore,” he said.

Jones, who had said actors staged the shooting as a pretext to strengthen gun control, later acknowledged it occurred.

WHAT ARE KEY ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION?

Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly — typically via the media — and purporting 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.
...
CAN FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES INFLUENCE THE TRIAL’S OUTCOME?

Indirectly, yes.

Jones can’t argue that he’s not liable for damages on the grounds that his speech was protected. The judge already ruled he is liable. But as a way to limit damages, his lawyers can argue that his speech was protected.

“Jurors could say (Jones’ defamatory statements) is actually something we don’t want to punish very hard,” said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at the Maryland-based Freedom Forum.

COULD JONES HAVE WON IF THE TRIAL WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?

He could have contended that his statements were hyperbolic opinion — that wild, non-factual exaggeration is his schtick.

But it would have been tough to persuade jurors that he was merely riffing and opining.

“It was a verifiable fact the massacre occurred at Sandy Hook,” said Solomon. “That’s not opinion. It is a fact.” Even if the parents were deemed public figures, imposing the higher standard, “I think Alex Jones would still lose,” he said.

But Covert said defamation is always a challenge to prove.

“I wouldn’t discount the possibility Jones could have prevailed,” he said. “Trying to speculate what a jury would find is always a fool’s errand.”

MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT BE SYMPATHETIC TO ANY JONES APPEAL?

Conservatives and liberal justices have found that some deeply offensive speech is protected.

In 2011, the high court voted 8-to-1 to overturn a verdict against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for picketing military funerals with signs declaring that God hates the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality.

“As a Nation we have chosen ... to protect even hurtful speech ... to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” the ruling said.

But it and the Jones case have key differences.

“They were both extreme, outrageous, shocking, deplorable. But the Westboro Baptist Church was also manifestly political and not defamatory ... not about any one person’s reputation” Goldberg said.

He added: “I’d be shocked if (Jones’) case ever ended up in the Supreme Court.”

Click to expand...