Dr. Peter Breggin, Mental Health Reform and Covid |547|

In the clip from his trial, they focused on his private emails and Twitter. He probably expressed it on his show too. So what? It's still his opinion about other people's ( particularly the MSM's ) news, and it was other people who harassed the complainants. So what exactly is he guilty of besides sharing an opinion? I'm not familiar with the details of the case. Did he actually threaten anyone or counsel anyone to go out and harass the complainants?
It wasn't an opinion. Jones admitting he was lying, not opining. He also had a commercial interest in that his statements generated revenue for his business. Hence the defamation charges.
 
It wasn't an opinion. Jones admitting he was lying, not opining. He also had a commercial interest in that his statements generated revenue for his business. Hence the defamation charges.
What-ever. How his opinions about a news story qualify as defamation is beyond me, and why he is held responsible for other people's actions in the harassment of the complainants is also beyond me. I'm not saying I either agree with him or disagree with him, but if it's defamation, then it's the Government he was defaming not Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, who were seeking $150 million ( gee no financial incentive there ).
 
What-ever. How his opinions about a news story qualify as defamation is beyond me, and why he is held responsible for other people's actions in the harassment of the complainants is also beyond me. I'm not saying I either agree with him or disagree with him, but if it's defamation, then it's the Government he was defaming not Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, who were seeking $150 million ( gee no financial incentive there ).
I don't think its a particularly difficult legal question to unpack. Again, you keep bringing up the term "opinion" which is something you are introducing into the legal aspect. He wasn't sued because of his opinion; there's no first amendment infringement. Jones freely admitted that he was lying about Sandy Hook. He did so under oath as part of these proceedings. Thus, its clearly and unambiguously NOT an opinion and subsequently opens up defamation law.

You're boxing with shadows on this one Randall. This isn't government over reach. Its pretty basic law and quite frankly pretty much common sense. Don't lie especially when your lying damages others.

https://www.minclaw.com/defamation-examples/
 
Jones freely admitted that he was lying about Sandy Hook. He did so under oath as part of these proceedings.
I haven't seen where Jones admits to lying at the time he made his comments. I have seen a lot of accusations of lying based on prosecutor's interpretation of the evidence. That being said, you may be entirely correct ( I don't know ). Post the clip where he says he knew at the time that he was lying with the intent to pass fake news as the real thing. All you need to do is go to the video and select the "Share at ( checkbox )". I also don't see where Jones harassed anyone himself. But maybe he did ( again I don't know ).

BTW: I'm certainly NOT saying that I agree with Jones. I'm also certainly not saying that wild conspiracy theories in text messages and on a show of the type Jones hosts should all be taken seriously either. If anything, it's just his schtick — and people should know better. If they don't, then I don't think that should make Jones liable for their actions. But I guess that's not how it works down there — especially if you can extract over 40 million dollars out of someone in the process.

That's what disturbs me. Now it's toe the line and don't question the MSM — or else this will happen to you. I can imagine someone saying something like some percentage of the official COVID death counts are based on misinformation, and then having someone sue them because their dear old grandmother died of COVID and it caused them no end of emotional trauma to hear someone voice conspiracy theories.

Don't you see what I'm saying? You say it's not about free speech. I disagree — this is an end-run around free speech through the civil court system, and I can imagine this setting a precedent for other cases. Maybe you think that's a good thing. I'm not so sure about that.

Alex Jones, Sandy Hook defamation damages trial will set precedent, experts say: ‘Do facts matter?’

Lawsuits against Alex Jones are a new strategy in curbing conspiracy theories
 
Last edited:
If anything, it's just his schtick — and people should know better. If they don't, then I don't think that should make Jones liable for their actions. But I guess that's not how it works down there — especially if you can extract over 40 million dollars out of someone in the process.

I agree.
I can’t argue a case for Jones, nor would I wish to, nevertheless somehow I feel it’s not right. There is so much hypocrisy on view, maybe that’s something to do with it?
 
I agree.
I can’t argue a case for Jones, nor would I wish to, nevertheless somehow I feel it’s not right. There is so much hypocrisy on view, maybe that’s something to do with it?
Agreed. And seems more than "not right" seems part of the agenda.
 
I haven't seen where Jones admits to lying at the time he made his comments. I have seen a lot of accusations of lying based on prosecutor's interpretation of the evidence. That being said, you may be entirely correct ( I don't know ). Post the clip where he says he knew at the time that he was lying with the intent to pass fake news as the real thing. All you need to do is go to the video and select the "Share at ( checkbox )". I also don't see where Jones harassed anyone himself. But maybe he did ( again I don't know ).

BTW: I'm certainly NOT saying that I agree with Jones. I'm also certainly not saying that wild conspiracy theories in text messages and on a show of the type Jones hosts should all be taken seriously either. If anything, it's just his schtick — and people should know better. If they don't, then I don't think that should make Jones liable for their actions. But I guess that's not how it works down there — especially if you can extract over 40 million dollars out of someone in the process.

That's what disturbs me. Now it's toe the line and don't question the MSM — or else this will happen to you. I can imagine someone saying something like some percentage of the official COVID death counts are based on misinformation, and then having someone sue them because their dear old grandmother died of COVID and it caused them no end of emotional trauma to hear someone voice conspiracy theories.

Don't you see what I'm saying? You say it's not about free speech. I disagree — this is an end-run around free speech through the civil court system, and I can imagine this setting a precedent for other cases. Maybe you think that's a good thing. I'm not so sure about that.

Alex Jones, Sandy Hook defamation damages trial will set precedent, experts say: ‘Do facts matter?’

Lawsuits against Alex Jones are a new strategy in curbing conspiracy theories
There's a lot in here.

I don't know that Jones admitted to lying at the time he first made the comments in 2012 (I think it was 2012). He's since admitted to his statements at that time being "irresponsible". (i.e., under the law you are responsible for your actions) So, I may have overstated things a bit here and I see the distinction you are drawing.

That said where I don't have any sympathy for Jones (and other potentially peddlers of alternative narratives) as it relates to their first amendment rights is in how they present these positions. They don't present them as questions or doubts or even opinions; they present them as facts. XYZ happened. ABC did this. Etc. This is typically done without a standard of evidence. Its reckless. Its something we were all likely taught as children NOT to do. It can cause harm (e.g., Sandy Hook's parents).

I mean listen to what Jones says on Rogan's show:

Its damn hard to prop him up as a first amendment martyr. At least for me. If you watch the entire video (only 14 mins), at the 13m mark or so Rogan offers up a "If you knew then what you know now" question. I ain't buying it. Jones was all about building his brand and knew he was running loose and fast (to be charitable). And if he didn't, then he was just unintelligent and negligent. Either way, you are responsible for your own actions.

Finally, on this notion that people should "know better" I agree. However, we have an entire body of consumer protection law that is basically in place to protect people from predatory/unfair/etc commercial activity in cases where one could argue they should "know better". Its hard to use the "know better" schtick because its often relative (maybe the average person isn't as intelligent as you are Randall) and it can move into the victim blaming territory.
 
There's a lot in here.
That's all fair enough. I think that perhaps I was a bit misunderstood in that it seemed like I was coming to Jones' personal defense. On that front, I'm much more on the wavelength of what Megyn Kelly has to say.

Megyn Kelly on the Truth About Alex Jones

 
Last edited:
This is another arrow in the heart of "The Great Reset" conspiracy. If Covid was a plan to destroy the system and take over the world, then why this very in-depth look at what went wrong with their messaging? I don't buy the argument that they were forced to.. no one forces these people, and even if they "gave up" we wouldn't see them taking the time to take responsibility for how they screwed up.
 
This is another arrow in the heart of "The Great Reset" conspiracy. If Covid was a plan to destroy the system and take over the world, then why this very in-depth look at what went wrong with their messaging? I don't buy the argument that they were forced to.. no one forces these people, and even if they "gave up" we wouldn't see them taking the time to take responsibility for how they screwed up.
I'll take this one.

Hillary was supposed to win in 2016 and get us into war with Russia around 2018.
The virus was supposed to shut down the whole world for 10 years to implement the green pass.
The vaccine was suppose to come out much later and be tied to your green pass, so anyone who didn't take it couldn't buy/sell.
By that time they could weaponize the virus/vax to target less-desirable populations.
Trump came in bull-in-china-shop so the reason for rolling out the virus kinda evolved into:
1. Stop all the massive right wing protests happening all around the world in 2019 (Totally succeeded)
2. Short term attempt to roll out a green pass (Mostly failed)
3. Try to take out Trump movement (Mostly succeeded).

They absolutely used the virus for all these reasons, the question is was it a last minute revised masterplan? or did it just look like it?
 
Jack, an argument against any/all counter evidence can always be retrofitted to maintain the conspiracy. You knew that already though.

By the way, well done Robbe!
 
I'll take this one.

Hillary was supposed to win in 2016 and get us into war with Russia around 2018.
The virus was supposed to shut down the whole world for 10 years to implement the green pass.
The vaccine was suppose to come out much later and be tied to your green pass, so anyone who didn't take it couldn't buy/sell.
By that time they could weaponize the virus/vax to target less-desirable populations.
Trump came in bull-in-china-shop so the reason for rolling out the virus kinda evolved into:
1. Stop all the massive right wing protests happening all around the world in 2019 (Totally succeeded)
2. Short term attempt to roll out a green pass (Mostly failed)
3. Try to take out Trump movement (Mostly succeeded).

They absolutely used the virus for all these reasons, the question is was it a last minute revised masterplan? or did it just look like it?
Just looked like it[[cb]][[l]]
 
Back
Top