Alex Jones Trial

[Peru oso donas]

I don't think the theory of Glowie handlers got the shooter to do it was a thing yet. Tin foil hats of the time were a little different.

I guess glowies getting tards to shot up stuff was only really getting acknowledged after the vegas shooting at the latest, but alphabet agencies giving illegal stuff to people so they can catch them, as well as stuff like MK Ultra have been a thing since those institutions were funded, so I don't think "ideas of the era" can fully explain Alex Jones retardation.

 

[MadStan]

Jones' lawyer didn't accidentally do shit.

Set up.

That would be a hard master stroke to believe. If it turns out the "accidental leak" was not in fact accidental and this in some way results in a positive for the defense then I will have to eat my hat and bow down to them in admiration of their brilliance.

Conversely, if it is not a master stroke and is a legitimate screw up (which I think is more plausible) then I am going to have to mail his lawyers some clown outfits.

 

[MadStan]

The reason this trial is happening at all is because Alex Jones is an absolute fucking retard who ignored one of the first rules of media with regard to coverage of a crime: You do not, under any circumstances, accuse someone of committing a crime which they have not already been found guilty of in a court of law.
"Allegedly" is a magic word which could have easily prevented all of this.

I'm not really sure using that word would have saved him.

"Alleging" the parents are part of some government scheme to fake their own children's death really doesn't shield him. We could go on for hours about the use of the word as protection, but at the heart of this matter is the lying about the parents and their children and I do not think using the word "allegedly" would have saved him.

Allege is not a carte blanche prefix for saying anything you want as a defense for spreading lies that have consequences.

Like I said I am not in conflict with your comment at all, I am only saying I doubt the use of that term would have provided any shielding for the bridge he travelled which was not only too far, but entirely non-existent.

 

[SBG]

Well Johnny Depp and Kyle Rittenhouse didn't kneecap themselves like Alex Jones did, so it's kind of an apples and Oranges thing.

Considering the shit the average journo says and gets away with I get where you're coming from though.

I think Depp’s team ended up screwing up and sending 10 years of text messages rather than the requested shorter period. Similar situation to Alex Jones and his emails.

This trial pretty fucked though since they’re saying it doesn’t matter if Alex was telling what he thought was the truth. So it doesn’t matter if there’s evidence of actual malice or not. Under this reasoning you could sue a whole slew of journalists if they published something untrue whether they believed it was true or not.

 

[Penis Drager]

I'm not really sure using that word would have saved him.

"Alleging" the parents are part of some government scheme to fake their own children's death really doesn't shield him. We could go on for hours about the use of the word as protection, but at the heart of this matter is the lying about the parents and their children and I do not think using the word "allegedly" would have saved him.

Allege is not a carte blanche prefix for saying anything you want as a defense for spreading lies that have consequences.

Like I said I am not in conflict with your comment at all, I am only saying I doubt the use of that term would have provided any shielding for the bridge he travelled which was not only too far, but entirely non-existent.

Jones did not invent this claim. It was a conspiracy theory that was already in circulation before he picked it up.
By reporting on the claim in circulation, and providing the evidence that purportedly supports the theory, without explicitly endorsing it he would absolutely be in the clear.

 

[MadStan]

Jones did not invent this claim. It was a conspiracy theory that was already in circulation before he picked it up.
By reporting on the claim in circulation, and providing the evidence that purportedly supports the theory, without explicitly endorsing it he would absolutely be in the clear.

I don't interpret it the same way you do.

I mean, just because a nut job homeless guy down the road says it, doesn't give credence to it now appearing on CNN or Fox News as "alleged" facts. He pushed this theory because it bought views and he knew it was garbage which is important.

This case as well the cases against Fox News and Sidney Powell are making an important distinction that free speech isn't an open ended ticket to say or create anything you wish. It is a lesson both the right and left news markets both need to be reined in on because these statements have very real life consequences. They are both guilty of it and while the Sandy Hook and false Election claims are dominating the headlines, the Left too has made "alleged" claims too that are the root of actions taken and they too need to be held accountable.

We ask people to do research to make their own mind up, but when they too are presented with false facts in their research pushed by the same people who made these outlandish claims, it is liable behavior because they are doing it with a purpose, and that purpose is to hurt others and cause harm.

Alex Jones wasn't fooled by false evidence. He knowingly used false evidence to push his rating and profit from it. The fact someone else stated it first doesn't give him any diminished responsibility in what he was pushing or saying, if not perhaps mores given his immense resources and ability to research properly. He can not claim to be at the forefront of truth and decency when he then pushes crap he knows to be crap and hide behind "someone else said it".

 

[$80 Nude Haircut]

I don't know how the fuck a lawyer "accidentally" sends evidence that their client perjured themselves to the prosecution. How would that even happen?

His defense attorney must have hated him. "Oopsy daisy, I just destroyed our case and opened you up to criminal charges, silly me!"

Me watching a humble water filter salesman get dragged into federal court because he chose to exercise his first amendment rights and question the strange circumstances surrounding an alleged mass shooting only for his state-appointed "representative" to collude with the state-appointed entities prosecuting him, destroying any right to privacy he may have had & providing said prosecutors with a buffet of items they're free to pilpul this guy to death with, reinforcing the theory that the USA's justice system is an oxymoron and the judge, defense, prosecution, jury and every member of government will openly collude to fuck over anybody who asks inconvenient questions, culminating in an overweight Jewish lickspittle grandstanding harder than that one quivering "Qui?" news anchor kike.

 

[Fuggalope]

Alex Jones has never been wrong. Eventually the truth will come out.

 

[Beautiful Border]

My understanding is that he's not being sued for calling it a hoax, but because the families of the dead kids are claiming they were harrassed because of it. But is there any actual evidence he told his followers to harrass them? Nobody disputes that he called it a hoax (which IMO is still something he shouldn't have done), but if he didn't tell people to contact the parents then I don't see how what anyone else did to them was his responsibility.

 

[Yeshua Moon]

I’ll give you an example. Let us say you have a daughter and she comes home with her dress torn claiming the neighbor just raped her. You grab your gun and shoot the neighbor. Turns out it was just an aprils fools joke. But now your neighbor is dead. Yes you pulled the trigger but do you think a reasonable person would conclude your daughter actually had a hand in what happened? Obviously.

What would the daughter actually be charged with here?

Fun example question because I love this clip and always thought of Alex Jones as a WWF version of news. Is Rey Mysterio liable here if some schizo jumps out from the crowd to shoot the Big Show because his acting genuinely convinced the fan that his life was in jeopardy?

I find this whole trial truly tragic as an unhinged rant appreciator.

 

[Penis Drager]

I don't interpret it the same way you do.

I mean, just because a nut job homeless guy down the road says it, doesn't give credence to it now appearing on CNN or Fox News as "alleged" facts. He pushed this theory because it bought views and he knew it was garbage which is important.

This case as well the cases against Fox News and Sidney Powell are making an important distinction that free speech isn't an open ended ticket to say or create anything you wish. It is a lesson both the right and left news markets both need to be reined in on because these statements have very real life consequences. They are both guilty of it and while the Sandy Hook and false Election claims are dominating the headlines, the Left too has made "alleged" claims too that are the root of actions taken and they too need to be held accountable.

We ask people to do research to make their own mind up, but when they too are presented with false facts in their research pushed by the same people who made these outlandish claims, it is liable behavior because they are doing it with a purpose, and that purpose is to hurt others and cause harm.

Alex Jones wasn't fooled by false evidence. He knowingly used false evidence to push his rating and profit from it. The fact someone else stated it first doesn't give him any diminished responsibility in what he was pushing or saying, if not perhaps mores given his immense resources and ability to research properly. He can not claim to be at the forefront of truth and decency when he then pushes crap he knows to be crap and hide behind "someone else said it".

I don't know nor care about the quality of the evidence behind the claim that Sandy Hook was a hoax. And I specifically don't care about Jones's motives. What I'm saying is that there would be no grounds for defamation if he never openly accused the plaintiffs of being crisis actors or whatever.
Had he framed his segment as "this is what some people believe happened," he'd be off Scott free.

 

[Bastet]

Literal blood money when the parents win.

 

[gaystoner]

Something major just happened with Jones' lawyer apparently mentioning something regarding jan6th text and now theres speculation the jan 6th comitttee will get more info on him

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

The Alex Jones Trial is just proof that AJ let the memes and hoaxes get the best of him and now he’s paying for the consequences of his own actions. As someone who enjoyed his viral interview with Joe Rogan a few years back, I’m not shocked that this looks bad from his personal counsel making his texts and other personal information look like he’s really in a bad light.

Though, this still does not change the fact that people should be mercilessly celebrating the fact that he could be defunded and broke when it’s all said and done. If this was done on the right side of the aisle of a person you agreed with politically, you would not be smiling wide eyed while watching with glee the idea of Alex Jones no longer being allowed to have a voice.

People really need to be consistent and watch out who they choose to celebrate being sabotaged because of wrongthink.

Either way, this is has aged (somewhat) well:

 

[kickingstones]

i still trust what alex jones says more than any government or one of george soros' globohomos say.

But there's no denying Alex has fucked big time in how he has approached this trial. I just hope this isnt the beginning of clamping down on any dissident speech.

 

[b0o0pinsn0o0tz]

i still trust what alex jones says more than any government or one of george soros' globohomos say.

But there's no denying Alex has fucked big time in how he has approached this trial. I just hope this isnt the beginning of clamping down on any dissident speech.

It's not the beginning. Wrong think has been getting punished for years. The deck was stacked against Jones from the start and His lawyer fucking up ended him.

 

[kickingstones]

It's not the beginning. Wrong think has been getting punished for years. The deck was stacked against Jones from the start and His lawyer fucking up ended him.

sorry should have specified legal precedent.

Robert Barnes does a good job laying out the stakes.

Also does anybody else think that youtube suspended Rekieta so he couldnt cover the case and mobilize support for Alex jones like he did for Depp and Rittenhouse

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Per BBC, Jones to pay $4.1 million, jury still to decide punitive damages.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62427918
archive

Could have been a lot worse, may still be able to sell seeds.

Update: Looks like punitive damages might be capped to 2x the regular (economic) damages, plus up to $750k at discretion of the jury; or $200k, whichever is greater. If I'm reading that right, he could be out up to $13 million. Not crippling in of itself, but he has other cases and probably should appeal this case.

Edit: archive and typos
Edit2: Speculation on punitive damages

 

[TheDarknessGrows]

That would be a hard master stroke to believe. If it turns out the "accidental leak" was not in fact accidental and this in some way results in a positive for the defense then I will have to eat my hat and bow down to them in admiration of their brilliance.

No they leaked it in purpose to hurt Alex Jones it is all but confirmed now.

 

[Too Many Catgirls]

The amount of railroading in this clip is pretty fucked. lets just do some arm chair lawyering.

1. Jone's privileged text are read into court prior to Jone's even knowing about it (allegedly)
2. Jone's lawyer is the one that disclosed these text
3. Jone's lawyer isn't screaming his head off for a mistrial
4. The judge is reprimanding Jones for trying to answer a question in a way that she doesn't like
5. Jone's lawyer didn't fight this at all.

Jones will likely only get a slightly fairer trail than Chauvin. That is to say he could have Johnnie Cochran hired for tomorrow and still have no chance of winning. I don't know if Johnny could have saved him earlier with what I've seen in a few clips with the judge.

This is now looking like a feasible future.
View attachment 3562047

Juror questions to the judge explicitly brought up whether or not what is happening to Jones can be used against election contests.

can we use lawsuits like these to stop election deniers?

Buckle up.