New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The female judge in the alex jones case. Radical leftist linked to human trafficking

Rubberband_Charlie

Council Member
I don't get it, are you pretending now that he didn't say these things up until this point?
He did say those things. Then somebody called him on it and sued his ass and shaved him a 4 million dollars. It's still freedom of speech, he ran his mouth, he paid the price. He continues to be free to run his mouth all he pleases. In as much as he's able to withstand lawsuits taking him down for 4 million bucks a pop or whatever the next verdict is. Still got freedom of speech
I didn't follow this trial at all because I don't like or follow Alex Jones. That being said, did he say something aimed directly against the couple that sued him? Did Jones say something directly meant to damage their, personal, reputation?

If not, how is he guilty of defaming them? The first amendment protects him speaking his opinion that the Sandy Hook shooting was a "hoax" just like any number of people on PJ saying the other side are "cultists"...no?

As disgusting as I find Alex Jones, I fully support his freedom to hold, speak, and/or publish his opinions/thoughts without fear of legal action.

This judge made a poor and political decision and it should be overturned. People shouldn't be fearful of expression, no matter how wrong or misguided, by the government.

This would be just like the families of the astronauts who landed on the moon suing those who claim it was a staged hoax.

Just my two coppers...
 

EatTheRich

President
Not at all, the press has a duty to tell the truth. When they lie, and they do A LOT, they're not better than you people. Alex Jones isn't the press.
Exactly as I thought. A freedom of speech absolutist, unless someone disagrees with you. Note that almost everything you and Trump called lies were accurate reports that reflected badly on Trump.
 

EatTheRich

President
I didn't follow this trial at all because I don't like or follow Alex Jones. That being said, did he say something aimed directly against the couple that sued him? Did Jones say something directly meant to damage their, personal, reputation?

If not, how is he guilty of defaming them? The first amendment protects him speaking his opinion that the Sandy Hook shooting was a "hoax" just like any number of people on PJ saying the other side are "cultists"...no?

As disgusting as I find Alex Jones, I fully support his freedom to hold, speak, and/or publish his opinions/thoughts without fear of legal action.

This judge made a poor and political decision and it should be overturned. People shouldn't be fearful of expression, no matter how wrong or misguided, by the government.

This would be just like the families of the astronauts who landed on the moon suing those who claim it was a staged hoax.

Just my two coppers...
Yes, he said they were “crisis actors.”
 

Colorforms

Senator
Exactly as I thought. A freedom of speech absolutist, unless someone disagrees with you. Note that almost everything you and Trump called lies were accurate reports that reflected badly on Trump.
The press is government sanctioned and is subject to FCC regulations. Alex Jones isn't a reporter, and has a right to say what he wants as a private citizen. The press aren't speaking as "private citizens", and the fact that they are should be punishable by losing their FCC licensing. It's the reason that they are an enemy of the nation, because their calling is to be the watchdogs for the people, but are instead lapdogs of the fascist left. No better than Pravda.

Truth, accountability, and informed voting: reasons why freedom of the press matters

A healthy democracy has guiding principles like citizen rule, fair and free elections, the protection of individual rights, and cooperation. To ensure these principles become a reality, a free press is important. There are three main reasons why:

A free press fights for the truth

Freedom of the press matters because a free press uncovers the truth. There are many issues – often very complicated ones – that journalists are trained to analyze and explain. Without newspapers, radio shows, blogs, etc, the average person would have little to no knowledge of what’s going on around them. Most people lack the time and resources to investigate issues and stories that affect them and their communities. That’s where journalists come in. Armed with skills like research and critical thinking, the best journalists know what questions to ask, what leads to pursue, and how to fact-check. Fact-checking is a vital element of a free press. If the press is not able to fact-check safely and effectively, the truth remains buried.

A free press holds power accountable

Many entities can benefit from the truth staying hidden, including governments. One of the free press’ main missions is serving as a watchdog on power. The press is the bridge between the people and powerful entities. If the press is not free but instead beholden to power, it simply serves as an extension of that power. Without freedom of the press, journalists who try to tell the truth when it threatens the state are not protected by the law. This makes censorship and suppression inevitable. Even if a state made it a goal to be more truthful and transparent, there’s always an agenda they would need to serve. In the case of corruption and human rights violations, a free press is essential to exposing abuses of power.

A free press informs voters and strengthens democracy

Informed voting is the third reason why freedom of the press is so important. Democracies only thrive when voters are as informed as possible. Being informed ensures people understand the issues at hand and what policies and politicians best represent them. The press is the body that informs by analyzing information, encouraging discussion, and fact-checking. The freer the press, the better informed voters can be. Without this freedom, voters would be at the mercy of politicians and special interest groups that want to win elections and promote specific legislation. It would be very difficult and time-consuming for voters to do all their work on their own. A strong media makes the process less complicated and offers valuable insight.



The modern leftist press does none of these things, and in many cases, does the opposite.
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I didn't follow this trial at all because I don't like or follow Alex Jones. That being said, did he say something aimed directly against the couple that sued him? Did Jones say something directly meant to damage their, personal, reputation?

If not, how is he guilty of defaming them? The first amendment protects him speaking his opinion that the Sandy Hook shooting was a "hoax" just like any number of people on PJ saying the other side are "cultists"...no?

As disgusting as I find Alex Jones, I fully support his freedom to hold, speak, and/or publish his opinions/thoughts without fear of legal action.

This judge made a poor and political decision and it should be overturned. People shouldn't be fearful of expression, no matter how wrong or misguided, by the government.

This would be just like the families of the astronauts who landed on the moon suing those who claim it was a staged hoax.

Just my two coppers...
He specifically named them. They became targets of his listeners. Some of those families had to move as their addresses were made public.

Jones called them crisis actors. He lost because the tapes of his shows were quite damning.
 

Rubberband_Charlie

Council Member
Exactly as I thought. A freedom of speech absolutist, unless someone disagrees with you. Note that almost everything you and Trump called lies were accurate reports that reflected badly on Trump.
Swing and a miss on your part. I'm not a Trumpian...he's too liberal for my liking. And I am a Free Speech absolutist...I tolerate the opinions of uninformed speakers like you...

Finally, I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit or you would have understood my first paragraph of (pay particular attention to the first sentence...let me know if I need to explain it to you in detail) then the question that follows...

"I didn't follow this trial at all because I don't like or follow Alex Jones. That being said, did he say something aimed directly against the couple that sued him? Did Jones say something directly meant to damage their, personal, reputation?"
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Swing and a miss on your part. I'm not a Trumpian...he's too liberal for my liking. And I am a Free Speech absolutist...I tolerate the opinions of uninformed speakers like you...

Finally, I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit or you would have understood my first paragraph of (pay particular attention to the first sentence...let me know if I need to explain it to you in detail) then the question that follows...

"I didn't follow this trial at all because I don't like or follow Alex Jones. That being said, did he say something aimed directly against the couple that sued him? Did Jones say something directly meant to damage their, personal, reputation?"
Yes.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
I didn't follow this trial at all because I don't like or follow Alex Jones. That being said, did he say something aimed directly against the couple that sued him? Did Jones say something directly meant to damage their, personal, reputation?

If not, how is he guilty of defaming them? The first amendment protects him speaking his opinion that the Sandy Hook shooting was a "hoax" just like any number of people on PJ saying the other side are "cultists"...no?

As disgusting as I find Alex Jones, I fully support his freedom to hold, speak, and/or publish his opinions/thoughts without fear of legal action.

This judge made a poor and political decision and it should be overturned. People shouldn't be fearful of expression, no matter how wrong or misguided, by the government.

This would be just like the families of the astronauts who landed on the moon suing those who claim it was a staged hoax.

Just my two coppers...
I have no idea. I don't watch of follow him. Somebody sued him and won. He's still free to run his mouth
 

EatTheRich

President
The press is government sanctioned and is subject to FCC regulations. Alex Jones isn't a reporter, and has a right to say what he wants as a private citizen. The press aren't speaking as "private citizens", and the fact that they are should be punishable by losing their FCC licensing. It's the reason that they are an enemy of the nation, because their calling is to be the watchdogs for the people, but are instead lapdogs of the fascist left. No better than Pravda.

Truth, accountability, and informed voting: reasons why freedom of the press matters

A healthy democracy has guiding principles like citizen rule, fair and free elections, the protection of individual rights, and cooperation. To ensure these principles become a reality, a free press is important. There are three main reasons why:

A free press fights for the truth

Freedom of the press matters because a free press uncovers the truth. There are many issues – often very complicated ones – that journalists are trained to analyze and explain. Without newspapers, radio shows, blogs, etc, the average person would have little to no knowledge of what’s going on around them. Most people lack the time and resources to investigate issues and stories that affect them and their communities. That’s where journalists come in. Armed with skills like research and critical thinking, the best journalists know what questions to ask, what leads to pursue, and how to fact-check. Fact-checking is a vital element of a free press. If the press is not able to fact-check safely and effectively, the truth remains buried.

A free press holds power accountable

Many entities can benefit from the truth staying hidden, including governments. One of the free press’ main missions is serving as a watchdog on power. The press is the bridge between the people and powerful entities. If the press is not free but instead beholden to power, it simply serves as an extension of that power. Without freedom of the press, journalists who try to tell the truth when it threatens the state are not protected by the law. This makes censorship and suppression inevitable. Even if a state made it a goal to be more truthful and transparent, there’s always an agenda they would need to serve. In the case of corruption and human rights violations, a free press is essential to exposing abuses of power.

A free press informs voters and strengthens democracy

Informed voting is the third reason why freedom of the press is so important. Democracies only thrive when voters are as informed as possible. Being informed ensures people understand the issues at hand and what policies and politicians best represent them. The press is the body that informs by analyzing information, encouraging discussion, and fact-checking. The freer the press, the better informed voters can be. Without this freedom, voters would be at the mercy of politicians and special interest groups that want to win elections and promote specific legislation. It would be very difficult and time-consuming for voters to do all their work on their own. A strong media makes the process less complicated and offers valuable insight.



The modern leftist press does none of these things, and in many cases, does the opposite.
No. What bothers you about the leftist press is precisely that they do those things rather than carry water for the forces of right-wing dictatorship tending to fascism.
 

EatTheRich

President
Swing and a miss on your part. I'm not a Trumpian...he's too liberal for my liking. And I am a Free Speech absolutist...I tolerate the opinions of uninformed speakers like you...

Finally, I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit or you would have understood my first paragraph of (pay particular attention to the first sentence...let me know if I need to explain it to you in detail) then the question that follows...

"I didn't follow this trial at all because I don't like or follow Alex Jones. That being said, did he say something aimed directly against the couple that sued him? Did Jones say something directly meant to damage their, personal, reputation?"
Clearly you failed to notice that the comment you replied to was not to you.
 

EatTheRich

President
Right you tell em.. too busy blanket destroying all things not aligned to the group think..
Down with religious views.. Rah!
Down with anyone not an incensed liberal. Rah!!
Freedom of thought. No!! Rah!

Lol
Anyone not incensed at the aggressive efforts to establish a fascist dictatorship is a fool. I can remember as many as 0 criticisms of religion in mainstream press, unless you are talking about the routine attacks on Islam and other minority religions. Disagreeing with odious views isn’t attacking freedom of thought … attacking freedom of thought is when the Trump-backed thug body slams a reporter to silence him.
 

God of War

Governor
Reread the First amendment...it does not protect malicious defamation as practiced by Jones. He knew he was lying. He knew the facts showed he was lying. He now admits that the mass murder at Sandy Hook was real.
To defame someone, to slander them, you must say their name. You got evidence Alex said these plaintiffs names? Any Sandy Hook parent's name?

Got any evidence that Alex directed anybody to act on his slander?

There might be but nobody is sharing it with the public. Maybe you have an inside channel to be in on the know?

cc: @EatTheRich
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
To defame someone, to slander them, you must say their name. You got evidence Alex said these plaintiffs names? Any Sandy Hook parent's name?

Got any evidence that Alex directed anybody to act on his slander?

There might be but nobody is sharing it with the public. Maybe you have an inside channel to be in on the know?

cc: @EatTheRich
So you admit it was slander. He did say the parents of kids killed were part of a plot to take their guns. While transcripts of InfoWars shows seem hard to find....since Jones said the parents were part of the plot...that, all by itself, is enough to identify them to listeners without even using their names.

 
Last edited:

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Anyone not incensed at the aggressive efforts to establish a fascist dictatorship is a fool. I can remember as many as 0 criticisms of religion in mainstream press, unless you are talking about the routine attacks on Islam and other minority religions. Disagreeing with odious views isn’t attacking freedom of thought … attacking freedom of thought is when the Trump-backed thug body slams a reporter to silence him.
I'm pretty incensed by that nonsense. Why don't you try and elevate and stop arguing with figments of your imagination. I don't espouse or hold any of those views that you're spewing in my direction
 
Top