8 ms·

"I'm a supporter of Jones being able to spread whatever insane theories" I think you are a supporter of freedom of speech in general - that's something I thoro

"I'm a supporter of Jones being able to spread whatever insane theories" I think you are a supporter of freedom of speech in general - that's something I thoroughly approve of too. I also think you are able to understand the difference between seeing a horrendous crime and seeing that crime and attempting to profit from it. That seems to be what this bloke did: He tried to change and engorge the narrative regarding these horrific murders. This wasn't simply the usual run of the mill "American conspiracy theory". He tried to convince the world that the crime didn't actually happen and even worse tried to convince the world that the dead were actors and other nonsense. He was caught out rather neatly when his defence team sent rather too much SMS data to the prosecution. I am a fervent supporter of freedom of speech and other fundamental rights but there have to be boundaries - of reasonable decency and other quite tricky to pin down terms.

godmode2019 4y ago
Do you have evidence that he was caught out by the sending too much SMS data? His own statement said the SMS data was from 2019, it was all messages from that year rather than the ones filtered by the relevant keywords. The media reports did not have the same conclusion you are suggesting.
noduerme 4y ago
>> He tried to convince the world that the crime didn't actually happen and even worse tried to convince the world that the dead were actors and other nonsense. I'm a Jewish grandson of Holocaust survivors. I'm also American. I'm pretty happy our country has not adopted laws against holocaust denial in the way Germany or Canada have. I appreciate the thought behind those laws. But I appreciate freedom of speech more. And I do have faith that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that truth will prevail over lies. On the other hand, but not in contradiction, I'm also a huge fan of the American system of Tort Law. It's the discovery and enforcement mechanism of a free country. I think in this case, the system is working exactly as intended. No one is jailing Jones for his speech. But he can be held responsible for the damage that resulted from it, in a way that will dissuade others from profiting off of similar attempts to rewrite history.
- busyant 4y ago
  i hope you're correct, but i suspect that swiss bank accounts, shell corporations, clever accountants and "gifting" money to friends and family will say otherwise.
  - ggm 4y ago
    Those Swiss bankers are equally indiscriminate. They allowed a minority of wealthy refugees to hide value and allowed Nazism to hide expropriated goods and money, stolen from those self same wealthy refugee's less savvy compatriots, and continue to hide this wealth alongside the more quotidian tax avoiders and druglords and arms dealers. What I find fascinating is that even after panama papers the banking system is reluctant to really tackle the problem. We learn more from whistle-blower and (possibly law breaching) seizure of strong boxes, than we do from Swiss banks voluntarily. They really only love money. Social justice is nothing. Swiss neutrality is an enabler of bad things, in finance.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  The opposing, though not necessarily contradictory cliche is of course some variation of “a lie makes it around the world before the truth is out of bed”. That’s the problem, there’s plenty of situations where the lie has done it’s damage long before the truth can achieve much beyond the academic.
  - wernercd 4y ago
    and it's still more important to have free speech because who decides "truth" and "lie"... and what happens when those in power switch and the other side decides. Want Biden or Obama to have some power? Are you going to be okay with Bush or Trump gets that power?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - krapp 4y ago
      Political parties and Presidents don't decide what truth is and what lies are in the United States, or other free countries.
tootie 4y ago
I fervently believe that there's no practical way for government to regulate speech so they shouldn't try. If there were a magic way to stop people like Jones from talking that wouldn't chill free speech in general, I'd take it in a heartbeat. He's not contributing to the marketplace of ideas. He's spreading lies deliberately for his personal profit.
- krapp 4y ago
  So you agree that Alex Jones is deliberately spreading lies for personal profit, and that this is harmful, but believe there shouldn't be any laws against it or any punishment for the consequences? Does that include the judgement he's facing now? Governments have been regulating speech since the beginning of governments. Every society doesn't exist in a state of maximal speech oppression as a result, so it cannot be the case that any attempt to regulate speech chills free speech in general.
  - somewhat_drunk 4y ago
    Well stated.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >so it cannot be the case that any attempt to regulate speech chills free speech in general. That does not follow. It only follows that it doesn't chill free speech maximally.
  - tootie 4y ago
    No, sorry. I don't mean to imply he shouldn't be penalized in this case. I'm talking about literally everything else he says that doesn't get prosecuted. For example, saying the election was stolen is perfectly legal even though it's a destructive lie. Without a plaintiff who can cite specific harm, there's no crime
    - ww-picard-do 4y ago
      > I fervently believe that there's no practical way for government to regulate speech so they shouldn't try. > I don't mean to imply he shouldn't be penalized in this case. Those two statements would seem to contradict each other. How can you believe that the government should not try to regulate speech, yet it should still be able to penalize someone for their speech?
threatofrain 4y ago
> He was caught out rather neatly when his defence team sent rather too much SMS data to the prosecution. Minor nitpick: this was a civil trial so it's just plaintiff vs defendant.
dukeofdoom 4y ago
You should be especially concerned than. Listen to the closing argument from the plaintiff's attorney, what it is they are after. https://twitter.com/Spiro_Ghost/status/1555690309077565440 https://twitter.com/Spiro_Ghost/status/1555690309077565440 And it's effectively is to silence Alex.

godmode2019 4y ago

Do you have evidence that he was caught out by the sending too much SMS data? His own statement said the SMS data was from 2019, it was all messages from that year rather than the ones filtered by the relevant keywords. The media reports did not have the same conclusion you are suggesting.

noduerme 4y ago

>> He tried to convince the world that the crime didn't actually happen and even worse tried to convince the world that the dead were actors and other nonsense. I'm a Jewish grandson of Holocaust survivors. I'm also American. I'm pretty happy our country has not adopted laws against holocaust denial in the way Germany or Canada have. I appreciate the thought behind those laws. But I appreciate freedom of speech more. And I do have faith that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that truth will prevail over lies. On the other hand, but not in contradiction, I'm also a huge fan of the American system of Tort Law. It's the discovery and enforcement mechanism of a free country. I think in this case, the system is working exactly as intended. No one is jailing Jones for his speech. But he can be held responsible for the damage that resulted from it, in a way that will dissuade others from profiting off of similar attempts to rewrite history.

busyant 4y ago
i hope you're correct, but i suspect that swiss bank accounts, shell corporations, clever accountants and "gifting" money to friends and family will say otherwise.
- ggm 4y ago
  Those Swiss bankers are equally indiscriminate. They allowed a minority of wealthy refugees to hide value and allowed Nazism to hide expropriated goods and money, stolen from those self same wealthy refugee's less savvy compatriots, and continue to hide this wealth alongside the more quotidian tax avoiders and druglords and arms dealers. What I find fascinating is that even after panama papers the banking system is reluctant to really tackle the problem. We learn more from whistle-blower and (possibly law breaching) seizure of strong boxes, than we do from Swiss banks voluntarily. They really only love money. Social justice is nothing. Swiss neutrality is an enabler of bad things, in finance.
bandyaboot 4y ago
The opposing, though not necessarily contradictory cliche is of course some variation of “a lie makes it around the world before the truth is out of bed”. That’s the problem, there’s plenty of situations where the lie has done it’s damage long before the truth can achieve much beyond the academic.
- wernercd 4y ago
  and it's still more important to have free speech because who decides "truth" and "lie"... and what happens when those in power switch and the other side decides. Want Biden or Obama to have some power? Are you going to be okay with Bush or Trump gets that power?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 4y ago
    Political parties and Presidents don't decide what truth is and what lies are in the United States, or other free countries.

tootie 4y ago

I fervently believe that there's no practical way for government to regulate speech so they shouldn't try. If there were a magic way to stop people like Jones from talking that wouldn't chill free speech in general, I'd take it in a heartbeat. He's not contributing to the marketplace of ideas. He's spreading lies deliberately for his personal profit.

krapp 4y ago
So you agree that Alex Jones is deliberately spreading lies for personal profit, and that this is harmful, but believe there shouldn't be any laws against it or any punishment for the consequences? Does that include the judgement he's facing now? Governments have been regulating speech since the beginning of governments. Every society doesn't exist in a state of maximal speech oppression as a result, so it cannot be the case that any attempt to regulate speech chills free speech in general.
- somewhat_drunk 4y ago
  Well stated.
- thfuran 4y ago
  >so it cannot be the case that any attempt to regulate speech chills free speech in general. That does not follow. It only follows that it doesn't chill free speech maximally.
- tootie 4y ago
  No, sorry. I don't mean to imply he shouldn't be penalized in this case. I'm talking about literally everything else he says that doesn't get prosecuted. For example, saying the election was stolen is perfectly legal even though it's a destructive lie. Without a plaintiff who can cite specific harm, there's no crime
  - ww-picard-do 4y ago
    > I fervently believe that there's no practical way for government to regulate speech so they shouldn't try. > I don't mean to imply he shouldn't be penalized in this case. Those two statements would seem to contradict each other. How can you believe that the government should not try to regulate speech, yet it should still be able to penalize someone for their speech?

threatofrain 4y ago

> He was caught out rather neatly when his defence team sent rather too much SMS data to the prosecution. Minor nitpick: this was a civil trial so it's just plaintiff vs defendant.

dukeofdoom 4y ago

You should be especially concerned than. Listen to the closing argument from the plaintiff's attorney, what it is they are after. https://twitter.com/Spiro_Ghost/status/1555690309077565440 https://twitter.com/Spiro_Ghost/status/1555690309077565440 And it's effectively is to silence Alex.