Posted on 08/04/2022 10:53:11 AM PDT by RandFan
“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?”
Yep, sat on the witness stand, lying his butt off under oath, denying there were any texts or emails on his phone related to the case. A plaintiff attorney started displaying the supposedly nonexistent messages on a video screen while Jones was sitting there on the stand.
Did Jones actually claim the shooting did not occur, or did he merely suggest it was allowed to happen to advance the cause of “gun control”?
What all these hand wringing “they’ll do it to us too” articles are missing is one very important fact:
Jones is a LIAR
He’s built his entire career on lies. And in his Sandy Hook “coverage” his lies went to the point of claiming private citizens, not public figures who have a lower standard in the law against defamation, crisis actors who didn’t actually have kids die in this fake event that, according to him, never actually happened.
And to compound his lies he perjured himself.
The only people at risk are other lying scumbags who’ve built their career on scum. He’s NOT a conservative. He’s a glory hound LIAR.
“You are assuming your adversaries are going to play fair.”
You are assuming you’ll be defeated before the battle is even joined.
In the case of “Deep State events” it gets really ugly.
Even if you could prove that crisis actors were used in Event X, presumably you could be sued for defamation by parents in Event Y if you said Event Y was similar to Event X, even if you did not name any specific parents.
The idea is to deter anybody from writing or saying anything about any “events” protected by a wall of secrecy and lies.
The purpose of this exercise is to scare off most people.
It does not matter whether it scares me—or you specifically.
The purpose is to have a chilling effect on public discourse.
Put him on trial for being a horrible human being. There’s not a jury on Earth that would find him not guilty. Because he’s guilty. IMHO
It sounds like you may be defaming Mr. Jones.
Perhaps he should take you to court and make you prove your claims.
That is the whole point—almost nobody likes Jones.
That is why they want to make an example of him—to get other folks to be afraid to speak.
“The purpose is to have a chilling effect on public discourse.”
Except the laws on defamation have been in place since forever and they haven’t had a chilling effect yet, so your fearmongering is contrary to reality.
This case really is different.
Most defamation cases are one on one—Person X says something really nasty about Person Y—it is personal.
This case takes place in a context of lawsuits and other harassment of several individuals who have differed from the official version on Sandy Hook.
This harassment and intimidation has taken a variety of forms. This litigation is just part of a larger strategy.
You probably don’t even know who those other individuals are—because they have been shut down and silenced from all but the most obscure outlets.
“This case takes place in a context of lawsuits and other harassment of several individuals who have differed from the official version on Sandy Hook.”
Translation: Jones wasn’t the only one to make the very stupid mistake of slandering private citizens and opening themselves up to a very easy to win defamation case. *yawn*
He just got busted for perjury. The truth ain’t defamation. It’s now a matter of court records, and recorded on TV and available for all to see:
He is a liar.
I am not defending Alex Jones—his character or his integrity.
However, they may go after you next—and you may not understand why—and I am trying to explain why.
And neither will the next guy. Or the next guy. Or eventually you.
You ARE defending him. By refusing to acknowledge that he is CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY and now even LEGALLY a liar and therefore in a vastly different situation you are defending you.
I understand perfectly well. You don’t accept that he IS a liar, that he DID defame these people, and that it is perfectly reasonable for him to face the well established non-1st amendment damaging consequences for those actions.
Barnes pointed out after noting a juror asked the court if the lawsuit against Jones can “stop election deniers” in future cases.
—
And there we go.
Hell, I’ve had threats from certain Freepers about opinions “against the narrative” on Ukraine where they said I might expect a visit from the FBI... for a bloody opinion; not a threat. Anything slapped with the label “pro Putin” and I should expect a visit from the FBI. Thoughtcrime has arrived.
Gonna butt into this argument for a moment:
To be clear, I don't think the conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook being fake are even the least bit true. I just am not sure that Alex Jones was guilty of maliciously promoting them. I've heard different stories about events concerning Alex Jones and the related conspiracy theories, and as far as I know he really only entertained the notion briefly when the facts were not well established. Its possible that the narrative that he was a malicious promoter and slanderer is true and not that more innocent narrative. I have not really researched the matter.
But I do not consider it a moral defect to condemn when I am not sure. Even if there is social pressure put upon me to condemn. Even if the subject is of a very delicate nature.
Put him on trial for being a horrible human being.
—
I do hope you’re being sarcastic, because there is no criminal statute for being a “horrible” person; a purely subjective rating.
“You can say/think what you will of Alex Jones personally or professionally, but the way this trial is being conducted is a much bigger story.”
Did he ever chop off his finger?
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.