- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Looking back at the Alex Jones trial.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
That isn't free speech, sport.
according to the law it is so unless you change the law you're wrong.
only certain things are protected by free speech not all speech. i think this is where you are getting confused...sport.
1
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:50 pm to Byron Bojangles III
Read this, sport.
Now read it again...and keep reading it until you get it.
quote:
Freedom of speech is the right to articulate opinions and ideas without interference, retaliation or punishment from the government.
Now read it again...and keep reading it until you get it.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:55 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Freedom of speech is the right to articulate opinions and ideas without interference, retaliation or punishment from the government.
quote:
Freedom of speech, as enshrined in many legal systems, doesn't grant absolute immunity from legal consequences. Defamation laws, for instance, exist to protect individuals from false statements that harm their reputation.
Here’s how someone could be sued for defamation even in a society with freedom of speech:
- False Statement: If someone makes a false statement about another person that damages their reputation, they could be liable for defamation. This could be in spoken or written form.
- Publication: The false statement must be communicated to a third party. It could be published in a newspaper, spoken in a public forum, or even posted online.
- Harm to Reputation: The false statement must harm the reputation of the person being talked about. This harm can be measured in terms of damage to their reputation, loss of income, or other tangible losses.
- Unprivileged: There are usually some exceptions to defamation claims, such as statements made in court proceedings, in legislative debates, or in certain public forums where absolute privilege applies.
- Proving Malice: In some cases, particularly for public figures, the plaintiff may need to prove that the defamatory statement was made with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
Freedom of speech doesn't protect knowingly false statements made with the intent to harm someone's reputation. So, even in societies with robust protections for freedom of speech, individuals can still be held accountable for defamatory statements.
Now read it again...and keep reading it until you get it.
you cannot lie to harm someone reputation that is not protected under free speech no matter how much in your little heart you think it is, it's not.
felt it's important so read this again slowly....
quote:
Freedom of speech doesn't protect knowingly false statements made with the intent to harm someone's reputation. So, even in societies with robust protections for freedom of speech, individuals can still be held accountable for defamatory statements.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:58 pm to Byron Bojangles III
His idiotic stance is that unless the Amendment says "restrictions allowed in cases of defamation, defined as..." then it's an unconstitutional restriction.
He's a moron absolutist who doesn't understand the world.
He's a moron absolutist who doesn't understand the world.
This post was edited on 6/4/24 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:58 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I disagree.
Neat! Personal feelings aren't really relvant as it pertains to the OP but duly noted.
The 1st nor the 2nd are absolute, your opinion (it seems) is simply that they should be? That's all well and good but we have decades of SC cases/decisions that have evolved both into what they ACTUALLY are, which is what actually matters.
In this case, it's defamation, which is not protected free speech by the letter of the law. More specifically in this case, AJ knowingly spreading lies about Sandy Hook he knew weren't true that created great harm.
During his case he intentionally withheld certain evidence (emails, etc.), defying orders that were made clear to him, and that's why the judge(s) ultimatley ruled against him. Pretty standard result for a non cooperative defense.
Doesn't take a genius to see why he probably did that, in all likliehood he knew that evidence would've proven wo a shadow of a doubt that he knew it wasn't true. Also most likely why he's never going to get anywhere with appeals. "Found that evidence yet? Still no? Cool cool, enjoy being broke."
So, is he a bad person or a jerk? Is he "going to hell"? Probably but that's not relevant and really who cares. Was this case about a violation of his 1st amendment rights? No, those were (and still are) very much intact.
Glad that after 6 pages of mostly bullshite we can finally "look back" at the actual trial. Even though it's pretty clear most you never knew anything about it to begin with. Starting with the OP.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:58 pm to Byron Bojangles III
You can continue to cite convoluted legal systems all you like. If free speech isn't absolute, it isn't free speech. It's allowable speech.
This...
...is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted here.
This...
quote:
yes you can speak and be penalized by the government while simultaneously having free speech
...is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted here.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 2:59 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
BamaAtl
...and now you have this fricking idiot jumping in with you.
We're done here.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:01 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Freedom of speech is the right to articulate opinions and ideas without interference, retaliation or punishment from the government.
The government didn't sue Alex Jones he was sued by US citizens... so you're ENTIRE point about free speech is null and void because he was sued by NOT the US government but by citizens then found GUILTY by a jury of his own peers.
he was free to say what he did and was not retaliated against by the government but sued by normal people. you've been arguing a null point this entire time
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:02 pm to mwade91383
quote:
The 1st nor the 2nd are absolute, your opinion (it seems) is simply that they should be?
They are absolute.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:03 pm to Byron Bojangles III
MAGA is acting like this is the first time in history someone won a defamation lawsuit. It’s laugh out loud funny that someone with a Clarence Thomas avatar thinks free speech means freedom from consequences.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:04 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
The government didn't sue Alex Jones
Neat.
You:
quote:
yes you can speak and be penalized by the government while simultaneously having free speech
You could just admit that you were wrong and save us both some time.
quote:
so you're ENTIRE point
*your
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:06 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They are absolute.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. You’re becoming the poster child for why America needs to spend more on education.
LINK
I guess you disagree with Trump then? You think the press should be allowed to say whatever they want without consequences?
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:06 pm to saintslsupels
quote:
MAGA is acting like this is the first time in history someone won a defamation lawsuit. It’s laugh out loud funny that someone with a Clarence Thomas avatar thinks free speech means freedom from consequences.
his entire thing about free speech has been for nothing. free speech stops retaliation and punishment from the government against it's citizens. the government didn't sue or punish alex jones.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:06 pm to saintslsupels
quote:why are their rights more important than his?
Pretty pathetic that you care more about his rights than families of school shooting victims.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:07 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
why are their rights more important than his?
They aren't. And neither were violated.
Seriously did ANYONE actually read the f***ing case!?!?
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:10 pm to saintslsupels
quote:
Freedom of speech is not absolute.
You Biden Bros are about as retarded as they come.
quote:
I guess you disagree with Trump then?
Often.
quote:
You think the press should be allowed to say whatever they want without consequences?
From the government? Absolutely.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
yes you can speak and be penalized by the government while simultaneously having free speech
unlike you i'll take my L like a man and admit OK that was an incorrect statement. but can you admit your free speech argument this entire time has been wrong since we're discussing a citizen who was sued by other citizens? free speech doesn't protect citizens who sue other citizens.
quote:
*your
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They are absolute.
Alex Jones is and was free to say what he wanted to say and the parents were free to sue the frick out of him What's the problem?
If you were at a school event with your wife and kids and someone took a mic and accused you without any reason of being a pedophile would you just be like
[/img]Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:12 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
i'll take my L like a man and admit OK that was an incorrect statement.
Good on you.
quote:
but can you admit your free speech argument this entire time has been wrong
Here's what I said:
quote:
If you can be penalized by the governemt for speaking, you don't have free speech.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 3:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I'm gonna try and throw you a bone here.
Everybody arguing with you right now clearly means "absolute" = without limits & not absolute = has limits. The 1st & 2nd do have limits, that's a given.
You know all this and are still trying to win some semantics debate that nobody cares about. What's the point?
Everybody arguing with you right now clearly means "absolute" = without limits & not absolute = has limits. The 1st & 2nd do have limits, that's a given.
You know all this and are still trying to win some semantics debate that nobody cares about. What's the point?
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News