Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't wonder. I would know it was because Alex Jones took the advice of his attorneys that he would get killed at trial and better settle before he does.
How?
The article was redacted long ago!
Why doesn't CNN, WaPo, NY Times... get sued all the time for their fake news and slander????? They redact the articles. They correct their mistake.
INFOwars isn't just some dude in a basement trolling the web. They are a registered media corporation with full press credentials.
It would be much different if it was never redacted and it went all the way to litigation.
How?
The article was redacted long ago!
Why doesn't CNN, WaPo, NY Times... get sued all the time for their fake news and slander????? They redact the articles. They correct their mistake.
INFOwars isn't just some dude in a basement trolling the web. They are a registered media corporation with full press credentials.
It would be much different if it was never redacted and it went all the way to litigation.
Media corporations, including CNN, WaPo and the NY Times get sued. Unlike InfoWars, they usually have viable defenses because they don't peddle garbage like "Sandy Hook was a false flag" and "tap water is turning frogs gay" that low-information people lap up like idiots but thinking people know to be outright lies.
Even if he made a full-fledged retraction (or "redaction" since you don't seem to understand the distinction), which he hasn't, neither retraction nor redaction is a defense to a defamation claim where actual malice is alleged.
InfoWars is a media organization that can be the target of defamation suits just like any other media organization. Jones called grieving parents liars and actors, which will be more than enough to crush him at trial. If the NY Times was foolish enough to do something like this, I would be fine with them being sued as well.
In any event, your deflection only works are partisan acolytes and morons. Take it somewhere else. We are discussing Alex Jones and the extent of his liability in this thread.
All the dirt exposed and in the end, the judge ask.. was the article redacted?
Press Credentials.
INFOwars isn't just some guy... They are a full fledged media corporation, with full protections under the 1st amendment.
The Sandy Hook fiasco, was redacted by INFOwars and Jones personally. Case Closed.
Surprised we don't see CNN and the rest of the fake news sued for false reporting.
Huh?
"Redacted" how?
Did InfoWars have a reporting black-out on Sandy Hook?
If so, how did these parents hear or know about the comments that they are suing over?
Oh no. They were just called liars, actors, etc. People said their kids never existed. That the families got free houses in December of whatever year....
Yeah sure. They weren't defamed at all.
Are you going by what was actually said during the entire 4 hour program and in the days following, or by what you were told was said?
Are you personally going off hearsay, or did you watch Alex's show daily for weeks?
I have to ask, to see where your mental image is.
How?
The article was redacted long ago!
Why doesn't CNN, WaPo, NY Times... get sued all the time for their fake news and slander????? They redact the articles. They correct their mistake.
INFOwars isn't just some dude in a basement trolling the web. They are a registered media corporation with full press credentials.
It would be much different if it was never redacted and it went all the way to litigation.
***A Bentbow Vocabulary Service Notice***
Redact
re·dact
verb
edit (text) for publication.
censor or obscure (part of a text) for legal or security purposes.
Retract
re·tract
verb
withdraw (a statement or accusation) as untrue or unjustified.
"he retracted his allegations"
#1: To get third party discovery like that, Jones would have to argue that it such discovery is necessary to prove the hoax, which would be a tacit admission that he lacked the evidence to support his statement at the time he made it and jettison any defense revolving around a good-faith reliance on third-party source. Third party discovery requires a showing of necessity. Whoever told you that "discovery means everything and anything is fair game" is either the worst attorney in the world or gets his or her legal opinions exclusively from television dramas.
#2: As I mentioned in my previous post, to engage in this discovery would mean that Jones is forgoing the "I was just playing Devil's Advocate" defense and doubling-down on the "my statements were true because Sandy Hook was a hoax" defense - which would be a huge mistake on his part.
Let him try to go this route and he will not only lose, he will be murdered (figuratively) at the damages phase.
This seems to be the route that he/his lawyer will likely take. He has certainly already made statements to that effect.
"In a rambling 10-minute response published on Infowars on Tuesday, Mr. Jones said that his lawyers were very confident that the lawsuits were frivolous because his efforts to discuss both sides of the issue were misunderstood and misrepresented by major media outlets.
...
“I’ve been telling the parents for years I believe their children died, and quite frankly, they know that,” he said. “I’m sorry they died, but I didn’t kill them and gun owners in American did not kill your children,” he continued. “I believe Sandy Hook happened.”
Media corporations, including CNN, WaPo and the NY Times get sued. Unlike InfoWars, they usually have viable defenses because they don't peddle garbage like "Sandy Hook was a false flag" and "tap water is turning frogs gay" that low-information people lap up like idiots but thinking people know to be outright lies.
Even if he made a full-fledged retraction (or "redaction" since you don't seem to understand the distinction), which he hasn't, neither retraction nor redaction is a defense to a defamation claim where actual malice is alleged.
InfoWars is a media organization that can be the target of defamation suits just like any other media organization. Jones called grieving parents liars and actors, which will be more than enough to crush him at trial. If the NY Times was foolish enough to do something like this, I would be fine with them being sued as well.
In any event, your deflection only works are partisan acolytes and morons. Take it somewhere else. We are discussing Alex Jones and the extent of his liability in this thread.
They get sued to change the story. First a letter of intent is sent... Redact, or we will sue. It is part of the Freedom of Press. Even a private person, not the press, that has slandered/libel someone, can redact in a personal ad in the classifieds, to show a judge in a defamation case.
In this case, the article was already redacted long ago, meeting the legal obligations.
Slap Back law, is to get restitution for trying to silence someones 1st amendment, using the courts in frivolous lawsuits.
This seems to be the route that he/his lawyer will likely take. He has certainly already made statements to that effect.
"In a rambling 10-minute response published on Infowars on Tuesday, Mr. Jones said that his lawyers were very confident that the lawsuits were frivolous because his efforts to discuss both sides of the issue were misunderstood and misrepresented by major media outlets.
...
“I’ve been telling the parents for years I believe their children died, and quite frankly, they know that,” he said. “I’m sorry they died, but I didn’t kill them and gun owners in American did not kill your children,” he continued. “I believe Sandy Hook happened.”
Claiming, 10 years after the fact, that "I believed Sandy Hook happened" will do nothing for him here. His goose is indeed cooked. The statements at the time speak for themselves. Actual malice and huge punitive damages against him personally. He had better settle and settle fast because he will never be able to pay the judgment no matter how many taint wipes he sells.
Did InfoWars have a reporting black-out on Sandy Hook?
If so, how did these parents hear or know about the comments that they are suing over?
Are you mentally planning your attack off hearsay?
I know damn well, you personally didn't watch INFOwars, for the weeks of Sandy Hook coverage.
How did they not know, it was all redacted? Their attorney is doing them a disservice. The SlapBack suit is all in the budget of those filing these lawsuits. Soros backed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
