Alex Jones
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
There is no number that's deserving. Despicable and evil human being.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
is this not defamation? harrasment? and the families are seeking damages? seems above board.
F that guy
This isn't defamation by any stretch. Defamation is damaging someone's reputation through slander/libel. It could be deemed harassment, but I don't think what some clown says on the radio rises to that level. Certainly not to the tune of $1 billion.
Now if he targeted these people individually and directly in private communications, yes I think that would be harassment.
but the idea that free speech isnt exempt from the law already does have precedent in cases like harassment and defemation etc.
i think this is absolutely a good decision.
I'd agree if he just said it one time or something, but he went on about it for years while these families were being harassed by his followers.
Freedom of speech is protected only from government sanction by the first amendment. But I think most would agree that there is an "unwritten rule" in America that citizens respect other people's freedom of speech.
I get that most people will think this is a good decision because they hate Alex Jones the person - perfectly understandable based on what I've read about this guy. But from a legal perspective, it seems like overkill.
I'm generally not aware of the background details. If that's the case, why aren't his "followers" being sued as well? I think we all know the reason why - the scummy lawyers know there isn't any cash to grab there.
I really haven't kept up on the case, but this seems like harassment on his part. Using public airways to belittle the parents of these kids over that period of time, goes beyond free speech.
I'm not an attorney but it's one thing to have an opinion and express it (no matter how crazy), but it sounds like Jones was using a lot of false or made-up information to support his views.
Because defamation is the tort and not a crime. That is what caused harm to their reputation and caused the harassment.
There were several people charged with a crimes related to their harassments though.
I don't think there was any damage to their reputations. You could argue they were harassed though.
i mean, isnt saying somebody faked their childs death an attempt to damage their reputation? he profited enough off of that to prove their reputation has been damaged to a decent amount of people. and it ruined their lives
Claims by a radio host for years which caused people to believe you are a crisis actor faking the death of your children which resulted in your harassment and death threats seems to fit the damage criteria from my view.
Had it been one or even a couple moments on his show, I'd agree with you but it went on for years even after he knew these families were being harassed.
I couldn't care less about that low-life, in fact I'm proud to say I had to look up who he was when the headlines about this judgement came through. Shame on the network that allowed that kind of talk to go on and on. That said, and I know far from all the information, if his "followers" were harassing these families, where is their punishment? I'm hedging on getting behind this judgement because there truly is an assault on free speech in this country. What about the FBI arrests of the pro-life activists who prayed outside the abortion clinics? Lots of crying about women's rights, and privacy, and applauding this?
No. I don't look at one of those parents and think they are any less of a person because of what some crazy man on the radio said.
As I mentioned above, several were charged.
They weren't outside, they were inside which is not legal. They were told many times by police while they were inside that they were not allowed be protest inside but were free to protest outside. They were intentionally violating the law.
you dont, but enough do. does defamation mean 100% of the US population has to agree unanimously?
There are certain requirements a plaintiff needs to prove to meet the standard for defamation.
One of those requirements is that they were harmed by the lie, it's not if everyone believed it. They just need to prove harm.
As if you had any. And from what I read, the one guy was OUTSIDE of the clinic, and was not blocking egress.
No, the gentleman who was with his son OUTSIDE of the clinic was being harrassed by an escort and pushed him. Outside of the clinic. The guy who was pushed tried to press charges, but none were brought to bear, for simple assault OR for trespassing. So the local authorities declined to press charges, but the FBI can storm his house in full tactical gear and arrest him at gunpoint in front of his kids? Even if he did trespass, is this an appropriate response? Again, you play the role of generalist/apologist.
Not being an apologist. Giving contest.
You had mentioned multiple people being arrested for praying, not the one guy who was charged with assault.
The arrests of the people who were praying were all inside and they knew they were breaking the law. It is similar to when protestors obstruct something intentionally expecting to be arrested. That has happened against leftist activists many times as well.
The one guy, Mark Houck is charged with a federal crime under the FACE act even though he was not charged by the state. Yes, the FBI showing up at his house in full gear does seem like overkill.
I apologize for not being clear. Houck was not charged with assault OR violating the FACE act. It's clear that the federal government doing what they did are sending a message to pro-life activists.
Yes he was.
Here is the indictment.
Here is the law he is being charged with breaking -
18 U.S. Code § 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances
It's not uncommon though. The FBI shows up with force in a lot of cases and it is intentional so that they show enough force that people don't attempt to flee or try something worse.
He was not charged on the state level, was what I meant.Yes he was.
Here is the indictment.
Here is the law he is being charged with breaking -
18 U.S. Code § 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances
www.law.cornell.edu
It's not uncommon though. The FBI shows up with force in a lot of cases and it is intentional so that they show enough force that people don't attempt to flee or try something worse.
It's not uncommon? I don't know -- but where is the discretion? Some CYO dad with 6 kids? Really? Mom was quoted as saying the younger kids are traumatized and several won't sleep in their own beds.
If the Philly cops saw no reason to charge Houck with assault (or anything), we need federal law enforcement to overrule them? And the charge, as written up, is a joke. He simply shoved the escort to the ground, no context. Nevermind that the escort was in the face of his 12 year-old son.
Philly has a lot of left-wing nut jobs with no problem intimidating children:
Pennsylvania Democrat Brian Sims defiant amid uproar over 'harassing' of anti-abortion protesters
"Bring it, Bible Bullies! You are bigots, sexists, and misogynists and I see right through your fake morals," state Rep. Brian Sims told his critics.
www.usatoday.com
Last edited:
Right, but the FACE act is a federal law, not a state law.
No it's not uncommon if you talk to someone who has been involved in similar situations.
Maybe warranted, maybe not. It depends on the assessment that the FBI makes at the time. It has become a high profile case though so hopefully we get to see a response from the FBI.
I am aware it's a federal law, but if the Philadelphia police thought that Houck was acting in violation of the FACE act, wouldn't it be incumbent upon them to arrest him and turn him over to federal law enforcement? And if they thought that he had actually assaulted this escort, they would have charged him with simple assault. They did neither, and this administration's law enforcement arm charged him with both.
I wouldn't expect a response from the FBI any time soon. If the guy was known to have a house full of guns, which I doubt, then OK. Otherwise, no reasonable explanation or excuse to come into his home like that. None.
It's not up to them to decide or enforce federal laws though.
Unless they had direct evidence, they would need the guy who was assaulted to press charges, which he did but then did not show up to court which is why the case was dismissed.
There may have been guns in his home and it would seem more reasonable, though if he didn't then I tend to agree with you there.
Last edited:
Similar threads
