The purpose of a trial is to determine the facts of the case. This has nothing to do with the first amendment, that’s for subsequent appeals at the appellate or higher level. Did he say what he said knowing what he knew, yes or no.
If I were a judge you damned well bet I’d be unfavorably disposed to anyone saying “this is rigged” before the event.
The first amendment does *not* cover defamation of character (libel or slander), just as it does not cover incitement to riot, assault, or revealing classified intelligence (unless revealing such is in the national interest and shouldn’t have been classified).
If he knew his claims were false and still made them, therefore painting the parents as liars, that is *not* covered, never has been, never will be.
I’m going to take a guess here and figure that you’ve never gone down the rabbit hole of looking into all of the absolutely weird things that went on at Sandy Hook.
There have been way too many school shootings and way too many mass shootings. But when it comes to anomalies the two that stand out are Sandy Hook and Las Vegas.
More so Sandy Hook. Like I said there are just way too many weird things things associated with that particular tragedy.
It deserves critical scrutiny. Now Alex Jones might be a little crazy in some of his ideas but the underlying theme is that the topic should be discussed. And there are forces who do not want anyone to discuss the discuss the aftermath of that particular tragedy. Because it is the events of the aftermath in particular that do not make sense.
I've never see a fair exploration of the existing evidence in any MSM outlet.
Using parents' claimed pain to suppress public discussion of the evidence is authoritarian hooey, of just the sort in which The Liars Obama have regularly engaged.
Yep, glad there’s at least one other person here that has enough brains to read past the bias in the article and see that there’s really nothing here.
If I were a judge you damned well bet I’d be unfavorably disposed to anyone saying “this is rigged” before the event.
The first amendment does *not* cover defamation of character (libel or slander), just as it does not cover incitement to riot, assault, or revealing classified intelligence (unless revealing such is in the national interest and shouldn’t have been classified).
If he knew his claims were false and still made them, therefore painting the parents as liars, that is *not* covered, never has been, never will be.
Having said all that counselor, how is this whole thing not a political witch hunt against a man who has been attacked and marginalized for years by the Leftist Mainstream Media and Social Media platforms? Or would you say blind justice is not blind and not justice?