OJ…. AJ… White Privilege. Bad Precedent that WILL Affect Everyone. Adios, 1A

This will be overturned on appeals (providing he gets into a less-lefty area)

That is very unlikely that it will be overturned in appeals. Even if he successfully manages to get an independent state to take the case. Even more unlikely that he’ll find a “less-lefty area” since both states where he was put on trial where relevant to his business and where his alleged damages took place were Texas and Connecticut respectfully.

Those states determined he had default judgements against him, meaning he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and the only thing being argued by defense and prosecution has been how much would be paid in damages, not whether or not he was innocent or guilty. Jones never staged a merits defense, in that he fully admitted wrong doing. So he is screwed in getting the case overturned.

What is more likely is the appeals will significantly reduce (though it can also increase) the current fines placed against him. Jones as also admitted that he will have to pay something but that whatever they ask of him will likely bankrupt him regardless.

However, bankruptcy is not an adequate defense in a total dismissal of the fines but will only prolong the effort to seek payments for whatever damages Jones has already admitted to.

The default judgment is the angle to proceed. He had provided everything asked for. The judge used this as a way to get to the ruling without a real trial. Also the judge was severely biased against Jones.

Judges. Plural. Including the ones he tried to appeal to.

The rulings were already made by previous trials. The current issue is how much he will have to pay in settlements.

His guilt was already foregone by both previous juries, testimonies from both plaintiff and defendant witnesses.

He also did NOT provide everything asked for initially which is what lead to additional default judgements against him.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/10/01/alex-jones-loses-sandy-hook-defamation-lawsuits-over-hoax-claims/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2022/08/10/whats-next-for-alex-jones-after-49-million-sandy-hook-verdict/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/05/23/alex-jones-sued-by-more-families-over-sandy-hook-hoax-claims/amp/

Honestly, the only defense Jones or anyone still on his side for these trials is that the man is severely incompetent.

No matter how much he "harmed" people (which, let's be honest, he hurt their feelings and made them feel bad) one billion dollars is so far over the top, it's f**king ridiculous. I don't like the blowhard and I think most of what he says is a bunch of BS (turning frogs gay, etc), but this ruling is ridiculous on every level and IS a violation of free speech.

Not allowing him to say what he believes is a violation of free speech.

Next question.

Depends on the airline's rules. Why do we need to involve the government in that matter?

And last I checked, he didn't yell "Bomb!" on an airplane.

I’m just trying to gauge your definition of freedom of speech which is in conflict with what is constitutional.

In short; threats, libel, and slander are not quite protected speech. There are certainly some ways these can be protected, especially if the content of the alleged libel or slander is true. However, in the case of Mr. Jones, it has never been proven what he said was true and has been widely accepted as demonstrably false. Now, one could essentially leave it at that if Jones’s comments did not lead to a portion of his audience harassing the victims of Sandy Hook.

Due to this, the courts were sought to settle this civil matter and Jones lost.

The government only facilitated the civil matter. It did not silence Jones himself and therefore his first amendment rights weren’t violated.

Even if you believe they were.

But maybe you can explain to me "what is constitutional"? The only place where the Constitution mentions freedom of speech is in the 1st Amendment, which doesn't prohibit the expression of unpopular opinions. I am well aware that American authorities care little for the written words of the Constitution but that doesn't alter what the Constitution says, only what they say it ought to say.

First Amendment

“to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Most cases of libel and slander fall under are civil matters and as such individual victims have a right to petition the government to redress (or compensate) their grievances.

As I already stated, it is incredibly difficult to prove libel or slander as the key factor in those cases must be to either prove malicious intent or the statements to be false.

In the case of Mr. Jones, he admitted his statements were false, he lost the case.

That case is over. What is being determined is how much he must pay for grievances done to the individuals he wronged.

Another way to look at it…

I don’t believe Jones’s First Amendment rights SHOULD be violated.

Surely you’re not advocating Jones’s victims forfeit THEIR First Amendment to petition the government?

In a conflict of interest to keep the peace, that is where the government tends to step in and in MOST cases libel and slander ARE protected speech unless the speech was malicious or false.

Which Jones’s speech was successively arguably to be.

Go learn sense

Aw, did you get bored of your primary account and decided to check in on your old comments?

That’s sweet of you, honestly.

Learn to answer a question and then we can talk about what makes sense.

Honestly I don't use imgflip very often, but I think you're only interested in trolling. So, I don't think I'll waste anymore of my time with you. Toodles.

That’s evasive deflection. Usually a sign of losing an argument.

You’re more than welcome to come back and debate.

A troll is someone who has no interest in such things and sticks with ad homenims rather than being an engaging participant.

As you said to me months ago, go learn some sense.

You seem only interested in exaggerations and stubbornly standing by them even when questioned.

Not a good look for someone seeking honest debate.

But it does make a good troll.