Posted on 08/04/2022 10:53:11 AM PDT by RandFan
“he is a perfect test case for the first amendment”
Except defamation is not protected by the first amendment, so that’s irrelevant here.
I’m not following this but didn’t he bring this on himself?
/sarc
“he is simply being sued by the family members of dead kids that he lied about on the air for profit”
You just made a claim about Mr. Jones.
Your claim may be correct or not.
So presumably he should sue you for defamation since your claim (if false) harmed his family.
That is what is happening here.
The problem is that defamation can be used as a weapon to silence dissent.
Imho that is what is happening here.
And Amber Heard didn’t mention Johnny Depp in her op ed. But she still lost that defamation case. Saying someone’s name is not a requirement to be found to have defamed them.
“The problem is that defamation can be used as a weapon to silence dissent.”
Then if you dissent, you should probably be careful not to defame a private citizen and leave yourself open to a lawsuit.
“You just made a claim about Mr. Jones.”
Yes, and he is free to sue me for defamation if he thinks he can win the case. But he won’t, because he can’t.
Dint know much about the other three, but have been following Robert Barjes off and on since 2020 and he is a stand up guy.
Read this thread carefully.
You do not have to specifically name an individual to defame them.
You may well have defamed someone during your life (even unintentionally) but you were such an unimportant and uninfluential person that they did not care.
However, defamation claims can be used as a weapon to silence political enemies—and the claimed pain and suffering of the alleged victims can always be used as an argument by the plaintiff.
Those with deep pockets have a big advantage in such legal proceedings.
Bottom line—rich oligarchs can use the legal process to silence anyone with proxy defamation claims.
Not only do you have to name them, don’t you need to also show proof of real damages?
Didn’t Alex Jones deny, under oath, the existence of a bunch of texts or emails that his legal team subsequently produced? You know, perjury?
The purpose of this exercise is to convince you and you and you and you (Freepers) that it is too risky to put out your own webcast or podcast because somebody out there may decide your claims are defamatory.
Everything else is noise.
Okay. That makes sense.
It is amazing how the Left has co-opted Big Tech.
“However, defamation claims can be used as a weapon to silence political enemies—and the claimed pain and suffering of the alleged victims can always be used as an argument by the plaintiff.”
Then it would seem that people who want to engage in political debate should be, unlike Mr. Jones, especially careful not to engage in defamation, so that weapon can’t be used against them.
This is about the Deep State—they want the peons to sit down and shut up.
What the Nazis did to the Jews, Democrats will do to us.
You are assuming your adversaries are going to play fair.
They are not.
You will be silenced—if they want to silence you.
It is kinda like saying that folks should obey the speed limit in a town full of speed traps where the speed limit signs are hidden behind bushes.
Gone are the days when one could have an opinion. No factual data, but just an opinion.
I can’t say for sure if it’s true, but in my humble opinion (fill in the blank).
Nowadays if your opinion offends someone you can be dragged into court.
His legal team “inadvertently” sent them to the plaintiffs attorney, then when informed by the plantiff’s attorneys what they had done, failed to claim attorney client privilege regarding those texts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.