4 ms·

Great point! When The Onion starts making threats against survivors and relatives of school shootings, they should also face defamation lawsuits.

ta8645 2y ago
Honest question: what threats did Jones make against them? I understood that he claimed it was a hoax/conspiracy, not that he had made any threats. Not even sure how he could make threats against people he didn't believe were real.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ta8645 2y ago
    With all that typing, you could have answered the actual question. As far as I know, there were no threats made by Alex Jones. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know.
- tim333 2y ago
  The threats were made by Jones followers rather than Jones personally.
  - ta8645 2y ago
    Okay. But I think that undermines the argument the OP was making significantly.
    - scblock 2y ago
      "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
      - Yeul 2y ago
        And when one of your followers has done the deed throw them under a bus.
      - ta8645 2y ago
        Did he actually call for people to make threats or use violence? Did he even imply it? Do you apply the same standard to public figures who call Trump a fascist or a Nazi? Are they responsible for the person who shot him?
        tim333 2y ago
        Some examples of what he said >You’ve got parents laughing — ‘hahaha’ — and then they walk over to the camera and go ‘boo hoo hoo,’ and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? I mean, they think we’re so dumb.” >“Why did Hitler blow up the Reichstag — to get control! Why do governments stage these things — to get our guns! Why can’t people get that through their head?” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jones-has-said-about-sandy-hook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jo... Re double standards on Trump, I think people are ok with criticizing power hungry politicians, less so with parents who have had their kids killed. The Jones case was a civil case for damages. He's not going to prison or anything - just losing some assets. Trump is free to sue people who've implied he's a nazi (maybe he could start with JD) but I don't know how sympathetic a jury would be.
        ta8645 2y ago
        We're not discussing the case generally. We're asking if the assertion that he THREATENED anyone, holds water. So far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence, that he has. Whatever you think about the case, it should be decided with factual statements, not emotional manipulative accusations that bend the truth.
        tim333 2y ago
        Yeah, it seems he didn't directly threaten the families.
  - the_optimist 2y ago
    If I understand correctly: if I threaten a third party based on something you’ve said, you now face legal liability?
    - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      A single person reacting that way is unlikely to make the speaker liable, but when a large crowd reacts the same way and the speaker does not make attempts to defuse the situation, then liability should be assigned.
      - the_optimist 2y ago
        So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not suggesting you’re wrong or right, but your approach places a novel legal burden on observers, and thus detaches it from actors, where the responsibility currently lies.
        ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        > So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not at all - I'm saying the liability should go in the opposite direction. If worldstar fight videos incite lots of people to start fighting in the streets, then worldstar should be partially responsible unless they take actions to distance themselves from their viewers' actions.
        the_optimist 2y ago
        So if Alex Jones posts on WorldStar, they’d be liable? How far does deplatforming responsibility extend in this theory?
    - tim333 2y ago
      Googling: >To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages So probably no in that case as there was no significant damage. Sandy Hook was different in that there were ongoing threats and harassment for years.

ta8645 2y ago

Honest question: what threats did Jones make against them? I understood that he claimed it was a hoax/conspiracy, not that he had made any threats. Not even sure how he could make threats against people he didn't believe were real.

reaperducer 2y ago
[flagged]
- ta8645 2y ago
  With all that typing, you could have answered the actual question. As far as I know, there were no threats made by Alex Jones. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know.
tim333 2y ago
The threats were made by Jones followers rather than Jones personally.
- ta8645 2y ago
  Okay. But I think that undermines the argument the OP was making significantly.
  - scblock 2y ago
    "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
    - Yeul 2y ago
      And when one of your followers has done the deed throw them under a bus.
    - ta8645 2y ago
      Did he actually call for people to make threats or use violence? Did he even imply it? Do you apply the same standard to public figures who call Trump a fascist or a Nazi? Are they responsible for the person who shot him?
      - tim333 2y ago
        Some examples of what he said >You’ve got parents laughing — ‘hahaha’ — and then they walk over to the camera and go ‘boo hoo hoo,’ and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? I mean, they think we’re so dumb.” >“Why did Hitler blow up the Reichstag — to get control! Why do governments stage these things — to get our guns! Why can’t people get that through their head?” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jones-has-said-about-sandy-hook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/heres-what-jo... Re double standards on Trump, I think people are ok with criticizing power hungry politicians, less so with parents who have had their kids killed. The Jones case was a civil case for damages. He's not going to prison or anything - just losing some assets. Trump is free to sue people who've implied he's a nazi (maybe he could start with JD) but I don't know how sympathetic a jury would be.
        ta8645 2y ago
        We're not discussing the case generally. We're asking if the assertion that he THREATENED anyone, holds water. So far, nobody has been able to provide any evidence, that he has. Whatever you think about the case, it should be decided with factual statements, not emotional manipulative accusations that bend the truth.
        tim333 2y ago
        Yeah, it seems he didn't directly threaten the families.
- the_optimist 2y ago
  If I understand correctly: if I threaten a third party based on something you’ve said, you now face legal liability?
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    A single person reacting that way is unlikely to make the speaker liable, but when a large crowd reacts the same way and the speaker does not make attempts to defuse the situation, then liability should be assigned.
    - the_optimist 2y ago
      So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not suggesting you’re wrong or right, but your approach places a novel legal burden on observers, and thus detaches it from actors, where the responsibility currently lies.
      - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
        > So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not at all - I'm saying the liability should go in the opposite direction. If worldstar fight videos incite lots of people to start fighting in the streets, then worldstar should be partially responsible unless they take actions to distance themselves from their viewers' actions.
        the_optimist 2y ago
        So if Alex Jones posts on WorldStar, they’d be liable? How far does deplatforming responsibility extend in this theory?
  - tim333 2y ago
    Googling: >To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages So probably no in that case as there was no significant damage. Sandy Hook was different in that there were ongoing threats and harassment for years.