He slandered the parents by claiming that they were in on the plan to slaughter their children. He didn’t ask if they were or leave a shred of doubt by stating that they might have had a hand in it.
He said outright that they were involved.
That’s not free speech. He didn’t guard his words well enough.
It’s too bad YouTube scrubbed all the videos of that day. There was some awfully funny stuff going on.
I still think it was a false flag,
NO ONE. DIDED.
It’ free speech
“He slandered the parents by claiming that they were in on the plan to slaughter their children. He didn’t ask if they were or leave a shred of doubt by stating that they might have had a hand in it.”
That’s a straight up lie. You cannot find a single video of him saying that. Nothing of the sort was ever entered into evidence. He never mentioned any parent by name. One of the aggrieved in the lawsuit was an FBI agent who was not even mentioned AT ALL.
He questioned some oddities like the dad who was laughing to the side before he stepped up to give a statement.
Nobody was slandered. A guest suggested a false flag and Alex asked questions about it. Alex never definitively made that claim as a certainty, he DID ask pointed questions.
You need to stop believing everything you are told in the media. And furthermore, though doubting the facts of Sandy Hook is legal, before long he disavowed those who were saying it never happened or was fake. This was a retraction issued long before the case was ever formed.
This is just lawfare.
You’re a Canadian so you don’t understand free speech. Asking VERY pointed questions about a public event is -the essence- of free speech.
Anything less is a demand that government press releases are never to be questioned.
Moreover, the massive size of the judgment was based on punitive damages and violates statutory and constitutional principles against excessive punitive damages. Finally, the entire case against Jones was funded by Leftist billionaires determined to shut Jones up.
More broadly, at its outermost perimeter, freedom of speech must include protection for people who say outrageous and even untrue things. If not, then freedom of speech becomes a privilege available only to those who have the money and legal and political clout to litigate against their opponents.
Indeed, go against powerful adversaries, and you may find yourself driven into poverty like Mark Steyn in a battle against a climate change advocate before a politically hostile judge and jury in Washington D.C.
Oh give me a break. Most people will never make a billion dollars their entire lives. How is ones death, pain or suffering worth that? Order a fake apology ans move on.