- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Sandy Hook families offer to settle with Alex Jones for millions, not billions
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:31 am to wackatimesthree
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:31 am to wackatimesthree
quote:Public figures are not completely barred from suing for defamation, but they do have a higher burden of proof than private individuals. In order to prevail in a defamation lawsuit, a public figure must prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement with actual malice.
So I am an official in the Trump administration (or if you like, I'm Trump himself)
Actual malice is a legal term that means that the defendant knew that the statement was false or made it with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. This is a very high standard of proof, and it is often difficult for public figures to meet.
The reason for this higher standard is that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court has ruled that this includes the right to criticize public figures.
1
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:34 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
Public figures are not completely barred from suing for defamation, but they do have a higher burden of proof than private individuals. In order to prevail in a defamation lawsuit, a public figure must prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement with actual malice.
Actual malice is a legal term that means that the defendant knew that the statement was false or made it with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. This is a very high standard of proof, and it is often difficult for public figures to meet.
The reason for this higher standard is that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court has ruled that this includes the right to criticize public figures.
All that's great, but I provided you with an actual example that meets all the (even more stringent) criteria you just laid out above. Maxine Waters knew what she was saying was bullshite and the malicious intent is self-evident in what she said.
So.
If someone was actually accosted as a result of her public instructions for people to accost those officials, she should owe billions, right?
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:35 am to GumboPot
The mainstream media does this all the time...where are those lawsuits at? Why is the MSM protected from lawsuits?
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:38 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
So just to be 100% clear, you believe the parents of children killed in an elementary school shooting simply had their feelings hurt and didn’t suffer any real damages after the graves of their murdered children were desecrated?
No, moron, I'm saying that the ones who desecrated the graves are the ones who caused damages, unless Jones told people to go desecrate their graves.
But the people who actually did it don't have millions of dollars to grab, so...
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:39 am to wackatimesthree
No, a member of Congress cannot be sued for defamation for something said in session. This is because of the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, which states that members of Congress "shall not be questioned in any other Place for any Speech or Debate in either House." This means that members of Congress have absolute immunity for their legislative acts, including their statements made on the floor of the House or Senate.
But don’t let that get in the way of your defense of harassing the parents of children murdered in an elementary school.
But don’t let that get in the way of your defense of harassing the parents of children murdered in an elementary school.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:40 am to NASA_ISS_Tiger
quote:
The mainstream media does this all the time...where are those lawsuits at? Why is the MSM protected from lawsuits?
And Jones is a media figure himself, so whatever standard they held him to is the standard they should be held to.
Don't worry, we're getting there...
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:41 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
No, a member of Congress cannot be sued for defamation for something said in session.
It wasn't said in session.
She held a press conference.
You seriously don't remember this?
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:41 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
No, a member of Congress cannot be sued for defamation for something said in session.
You aren't aware of that Waters clip, are you?
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:42 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
But don’t let that get in the way of your defense of harassing the parents of children murdered in an elementary school.
I hope they find the people who actually did the harassing and punish them both criminally and civilly.
But again, they don't have millions of dollars to grab, so...
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:42 am to wackatimesthree
quote:They are desecrating their graves and accosting them in public because of the reputational harm done by Alex Jones and the platform he has to push this narrative against them.
I'm saying that the ones who desecrated the graves are the ones who caused damages, unless Jones told people to go desecrate their graves.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:46 am to wackatimesthree
Was her statement related to the member's legislative duties?
Did she believe that the statement was related to her legislative duties?
If so, the Speech or Debate Clause applies.
Did she believe that the statement was related to her legislative duties?
If so, the Speech or Debate Clause applies.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:55 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
They are desecrating their graves and accosting them in public because of the reputational harm done by Alex Jones and the platform he has to push this narrative against them.
So that's a "no," that Jones told them to do any of that stuff.
You are on a very slippery ANTIFA-shaped slope here. If you are determined to die on that hill (pun intended), you need to be honest about Waters.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:56 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
Was her statement related to the member's legislative duties?
Did she believe that the statement was related to her legislative duties?
No.
They were members of the administration's cabinet, not fellow members of Congress, and you tell me—what legislative duty would involve inciting people to harass government officials for legally enforcing a law that had been in place for decades?
This post was edited on 11/29/23 at 7:58 am
Posted on 11/29/23 at 7:59 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
But don’t let that get in the way of your defense of harassing the parents of children murdered in an elementary school.
Don't look now, but you are defaming me with this statement. I hope no one posts an insult against me because of it, or I will have to sue you for billions of dollars.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:01 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
So just to be 100% clear, you believe the parents of children killed in an elementary school shooting simply had their feelings hurt and didn’t suffer any real damages after the graves of their murdered children were desecrated?
YIKES…
So just to be 100% clear, the only remedy is for them to dry their tears with millions of dollars.
YIKES...
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:02 am to Gifman
quote:
So just to be 100% clear, the only remedy is for them to dry their tears with BILLIONS of dollars.
YIKES...
FIFY.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:04 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
FIFY.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:05 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
TigerIn2023
Dude, you are still bleeding all over this thread. Did you even sleep last night, or were you too worked up over a thread on an internet forum?
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:11 am to TDTOM
quote:
Dude, you are still bleeding all over this thread. Did you even sleep last night, or were you too worked up over a thread on an internet forum?
He may be gone at this point.
Posted on 11/29/23 at 8:30 am to TigerIn2023
quote:
You could also look at it as if Jones is going to continue to do his show, he will need to pay damages to the families he has hurt as well.
No, as you said he has already been “punished”. Therefore he has an obligation to pay regardless of his income. But they decided to offer him a deal to tie it to the revenue he generates. The more money he makes, it he more they make.
quote:
Are you saying that the families should drop the case and not ask Alex for any type of punitive damages? What are you suggesting exactly?
I just told you exactly what I am saying, and never once did I mention anything about this legal case. These families claimed Jones caused damages to him with the words he said, and their proposed solution is to take a cut of the money he makes for the words he says.
The judgement (as you said) triggered bankruptcy, and rather than sit on the judgement meant to cripple Jones financially, they reduced their asking price and now want a cut of his earnings.
I’m suggesting that this was always about money
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News