Replies

Well here is video of him claiming it was a hoax, not guest but him.

Alex Jones on Sandy Hook

Now I realize that link goes to mediamatters, but it's a recording of an Infowars broadcast. It's clear Alex Jones bought that it was a hoax.

Well, I realize that if you look closely at the rather fuzzy clip, you can see that it is from December of 2014; 2 whole years after Sandy Hook occurred. Which kind of supports the other thing I said: "He spent very little time on Sandy Hook."

I mean, this is the best clip the well-funded free speech monitors at Media Matters could find, and it was him responding to a caller who claimed to have heard things locally that made him think Sandy Hook was a hoax, 2 years after the fact.

And, since when is it a crime to think something is a hoax? Do you really want to live in country where people can't question mainstream media narratives?

And are you okay with the fact that the Sandy Hook lawfare firm put Remington out of business?

Or I believe Alex said in response to one of the lawsuits, something to the effect of it's not news it's entertainment.

Aaaaaaand he's back to regurgitating the MSM disinfo talking points. That was in his divorce case when his wife's lawyers played video of him in a satirical piece dressed as the Joker, claiming that made him an unfit parent. Not in the Sandy Hook kangaroo court.

If you really are just a "concerned conservative", you might want to check out sources other than the MSM or Media Matters. Maybe, I don't know, check out the actual source for their side of the story?

Naaaahhhh! Too much work, and it doesn't gain you an unearned sense of moral superiority.

It's up to a jury to decide if Alex Jones defamed the parents At best, by claiming it was a hoax, Alex indirectly claimed the parents were liars. I don't know if he said anything more directly. And yes, I'm too lazy to find out.

"To prevail in a defamation lawsuit, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff that was communicated to a third party. Thus a false and objectionable statement sent in an e-mail to the plaintiff’s co-worker may be libelous. The plaintiff can usually succeed by showing the communication was either intentional or at least negligent."

If it really was a hoax, Alex should be able to prove his case in court.

"Along with establishing all of the regular elements of the tort, a plaintiff who is a public figure must also show that the defendant knew the false statement was false, or at least acted with reckless disregard as to its truthfulness. Newspapers may escape liability for libel when they merely report false statements as long as the paper had no particular reason to doubt the statement at the time it was printed.

At the very least, Alex needs to be able to prove he didn't act with "reckless disregard" for the truth.

As far as Remington, I read reports that their bankruptcy was more due to mismanagement and becoming debt heavy, and not so much the Sandy Hook lawsuit.