Is it Time for an Alex Jones reckoning for Donald trump?

[Phil1111 910]

Alex Jones has faced serious legal liabilities for his infowars Sandy Hook lies and libel. An initial judgement of $100k for legal fees arising from:

"Mr. Jones has used his platform to spread the false narrative that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax or “false flag,” an event staged by the government as part of an effort to confiscate Americans’ firearms, and that the parents of the children killed were “crisis actors.”

trump has used the office of the presidency to lie, and slander many Americans without consequence. Now he has decided to use that office to attack Joe Scarborough. Through a series of lies, tweets, all designed to defame Mr.Scarborough.

Perhaps a $10-$20 million dollar judgement against trump would modify his mouth and tweeting fingers? Perhaps its time to name FOX news as co-defendant for assisting the spread of libel and slander under the guise of "freedumb of the press"?

Edited May 28, 2020 by Phil1111

[DJL 232]

8 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Alex Jones has faced serious legal liabilities for his infowars Sandy Hook lies and libel. An initial judgement of $100k for legal fees arising from:

"Mr. Jones has used his platform to spread the false narrative that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax or “false flag,” an event staged by the government as part of an effort to confiscate Americans’ firearms, and that the parents of the children killed were “crisis actors.”

trump has used the office of the presidency to lie, and slander many Americans without consequence. Now he has decided to use that office to attack Joe Scarborough. Through a series of lies, tweets, all designed to defame Mr.Scarborough.

Perhaps a $10-$20 million dollar judgement against trump would modify his mouth and tweeting fingers? Perhaps its time to name FOX news as co-defendant for assisting the spread of libel and slander under the guise of "freedumb of the press"?

To be clear, the thing is that the platforms don't take action against lies, they take action against intentionally misleading political claims.  That's why his post about mail-in votes was tagged and this posts about Lori Klausutis are not.

[Phil1111 910]

14 minutes ago, DJL said:

To be clear, the thing is that the platforms don't take action against lies, they take action against intentionally misleading political claims.  That's why his post about mail-in votes was tagged and this posts about Lori Klausutis are not.

"At a rally in Fort Worth, Texas,  in February 2016, Trump vowed, “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up libel laws, and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got[ten] sued before.” In March 2017, he claimed in a tweet that “The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?” And in October, he complained that it is “frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write.” He raised the issue again in January 2018, contending that “Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values.”

[DJL 232]

28 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

"At a rally in Fort Worth, Texas,  in February 2016, Trump vowed, “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up libel laws, and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got[ten] sued before.” In March 2017, he claimed in a tweet that “The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?” And in October, he complained that it is “frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write.” He raised the issue again in January 2018, contending that “Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values.”

Got it.  You're talking more about the general libel laws than Trump's recent statements about forcing social media platforms to not be able to point out false information.

[wmw999 2,120]

29 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

"At a rally in Fort Worth, Texas,  in February 2016, Trump vowed, “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up libel laws, and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got[ten] sued before.” In March 2017, he claimed in a tweet that “The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?” And in October, he complained that it is “frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write.” He raised the issue again in January 2018, contending that “Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values.”

So? It's not like he can actually do anything about it (like locking Hillary up, shutting down immigration the next day, etc). He just says what gets him cheers at that particular moment, expecting that the good feelings of cheering will carry over. Seems to have worked in 2016, and now we have a seemingly larger (at least based on what I see on FB) number of people who figure that whatever pisses liberals off has to be good.

It's kind of like watching cheering at a pro wrestling match, or listening to a discussion about the tactics on "Survivor."

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 910]

23 minutes ago, DJL said:

Got it.  You're talking more about the general libel laws than Trump's recent statements about forcing social media platforms to not be able to point out false information.

IMO existing laws are sufficient to bite trump in the ass and the quote to trump put the bullseye where it belongs.

21 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

So? It's not like he can actually do anything about it (like locking Hillary up, shutting down immigration the next day, etc). He just says what gets him cheers at that particular moment, expecting that the good feelings of cheering will carry over. Seems to have worked in 2016, and now we have a seemingly larger (at least based on what I see on FB) number of people who figure that whatever pisses liberals off has to be good.

It's kind of like watching cheering at a pro wrestling match, or listening to a discussion about the tactics on "Survivor."

Wendy P.

Quite right but there are consequences to malicious lies naming individuals directly. Which existing laws can address. The second link in the first post most accurately identifies the maleficence.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

To be clear, the thing is that the platforms don't take action against lies, they take action against intentionally misleading political claims.  That's why his post about mail-in votes was tagged and this posts about Lori Klausutis are not.

I think he's talking about one of the damaged parties suing Trump for what he tweeted about Klausutis, not about whether Twitter should do anything about it. But while it would be great to see him pay for such a despicable act of casual cruelty, a lawsuit would probably only serve to amplify his lies and further upset the bereaved

[sfzombie13 307]

a $20 mil lawsuit could, and most likely would, be settled out of court for a nice little sum, so that could go a long way toward calming the bereaved.

[ryoder 1,381]

Reuters: Alex Jones' InfoWars files for bankruptcy in U.S. court

That's a shame.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

32 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Reuters: Alex Jones' InfoWars files for bankruptcy in U.S. court

That's a shame.

It is a shame, as it is a transparent effort to avoid legal liability.  Hopefully the court will tell him to shove his bankruptcy up his ass.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

51 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

It is a shame, as it is a transparent effort to avoid legal liability.  Hopefully the court will tell him to shove his bankruptcy up his ass.

In which coming decade? Maybe he'll find a fall guy like Il Doofus found a Deputy Unter Accountant. We need to start seeing some real charges, penalties, and accountability, before the news cycle wins again. 

[billvon 2,395]

2 hours ago, ryoder said:

Reuters: Alex Jones' InfoWars files for bankruptcy in U.S. court

That's a shame.

Thoughts and prayers.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 hours ago, ryoder said:

Reuters: Alex Jones' InfoWars files for bankruptcy in U.S. court

That's a shame.

Does he have to reveal who was backing him and who was profiting?

I have no doubt this is an attempt to evade paying the judgements against him.
But those were 'summary judgements'. 

The cases never went to trial. Jones basically defaulted because he refused to provide subpoenaed materials.

One thing that was pointed out was that some of the 'refused material' included details on who provided his start up capital and who 'owned' the shows. 

I would hope that any bankruptcy filings would include that info.