Alex Jones ordered to pay a billion dollars to Sandy Hook families

[Artaxerxes]

No, the law does not require direction.

Direction or suggestion, and Jones did neither.

Nope. The law doesn't require that either.

It does, otherwise beyond that, no one could voice any opinion, but maybe that's what you're hoping for. I know that's what the Left hopes for.

Nope. Imagine someone told everyone "Bob is a rapist." Then, no one would hire Bob because of what he said. Bob could sue for slander, even though the person never directed or suggested that no one hire him. The harm was caused by the statement.

[Niyr]

Direction or suggestion, and Jones did neither.

Nope. The law doesn't require that either.

It does, otherwise beyond that, no one could voice any opinion, but maybe that's what you're hoping for. I know that's what the Left hopes for.

Nope. Imagine someone told everyone "Bob is a rapist." Then, no one would hire Bob because of what he said. Bob could sue for slander, even though the person never directed or suggested that no one hire him. The harm was caused by the statement.

False equivalence. A better example would be someone said, "Bob is a rapist," and people went and attacked Bob, which they chose to do of their own accord.

[Artaxerxes]

Nope. The law doesn't require that either.

It does, otherwise beyond that, no one could voice any opinion, but maybe that's what you're hoping for. I know that's what the Left hopes for.

Nope. Imagine someone told everyone "Bob is a rapist." Then, no one would hire Bob because of what he said. Bob could sue for slander, even though the person never directed or suggested that no one hire him. The harm was caused by the statement.

False equivalence. A better example would be someone said, "Bob is a rapist," and people went and attacked Bob, which they chose to do of their own accord.

I'm not sure what you think the difference is. Both of those would absolutely be actionable as slander. People chose not to hire Bob of their own accord, too.

[Niyr]

It does, otherwise beyond that, no one could voice any opinion, but maybe that's what you're hoping for. I know that's what the Left hopes for.

Nope. Imagine someone told everyone "Bob is a rapist." Then, no one would hire Bob because of what he said. Bob could sue for slander, even though the person never directed or suggested that no one hire him. The harm was caused by the statement.

False equivalence. A better example would be someone said, "Bob is a rapist," and people went and attacked Bob, which they chose to do of their own accord.

I'm not sure what you think the difference is. Both of those would absolutely be actionable as slander. People chose not to hire Bob of their own accord, too.

I quoted you specifically about the people who were harassing the victims. That is not on Jones.

Your example does work well for those who have slandered both Kyle Rittenhouse and Alex Jones.

[Artaxerxes]

Nope. Imagine someone told everyone "Bob is a rapist." Then, no one would hire Bob because of what he said. Bob could sue for slander, even though the person never directed or suggested that no one hire him. The harm was caused by the statement.

False equivalence. A better example would be someone said, "Bob is a rapist," and people went and attacked Bob, which they chose to do of their own accord.

I'm not sure what you think the difference is. Both of those would absolutely be actionable as slander. People chose not to hire Bob of their own accord, too.

I quoted you specifically about the people who were harassing the victims. That is not on Jones.

Your example does work well for those who have slandered both Kyle Rittenhouse and Alex Jones.

Again, what do you think the difference is?

[Niyr]

False equivalence. A better example would be someone said, "Bob is a rapist," and people went and attacked Bob, which they chose to do of their own accord.

I'm not sure what you think the difference is. Both of those would absolutely be actionable as slander. People chose not to hire Bob of their own accord, too.

I quoted you specifically about the people who were harassing the victims. That is not on Jones.

Your example does work well for those who have slandered both Kyle Rittenhouse and Alex Jones.

Again, what do you think the difference is?

You need help if you don't think there is a difference between not hiring someone versus harassing/assaulting them.

[Artaxerxes]

I'm not sure what you think the difference is. Both of those would absolutely be actionable as slander. People chose not to hire Bob of their own accord, too.

I quoted you specifically about the people who were harassing the victims. That is not on Jones.

Your example does work well for those who have slandered both Kyle Rittenhouse and Alex Jones.

Again, what do you think the difference is?

You need help if you don't think there is a difference between not hiring someone versus harassing/assaulting them.

.... That's quite the compelling legal argument. Almost as good as Jones's attorneys.

[Niyr]

I quoted you specifically about the people who were harassing the victims. That is not on Jones.

Your example does work well for those who have slandered both Kyle Rittenhouse and Alex Jones.

Again, what do you think the difference is?

You need help if you don't think there is a difference between not hiring someone versus harassing/assaulting them.

.... That's quite the compelling legal argument. Almost as good as Jones's attorneys.

This is a forum, not a courtroom. Are you lost? Was that your rebuttal? And yes, there is a huge difference between someone not hiring due to what someone said and someone harassing/assaulting from the same voiced opinion. But what could I expect from someone who walks lockstep with the MSM?

[Artaxerxes]

Again, what do you think the difference is?

You need help if you don't think there is a difference between not hiring someone versus harassing/assaulting them.

.... That's quite the compelling legal argument. Almost as good as Jones's attorneys.

This is a forum, not a courtroom. Are you lost? Was that your rebuttal? And yes, there is a huge difference between someone not hiring due to what someone said and someone harassing/assaulting from the same voiced opinion. But what could I expect from someone who walks lockstep with the MSM?

And that difference is....

[cyclOps]

I'm not sure what you think the difference is. Both of those would absolutely be actionable as slander. People chose not to hire Bob of their own accord, too.

I quoted you specifically about the people who were harassing the victims. That is not on Jones.

Your example does work well for those who have slandered both Kyle Rittenhouse and Alex Jones.

Again, what do you think the difference is?

You need help if you don't think there is a difference between not hiring someone versus harassing/assaulting them.

Bob’s accuser would not be criminally guilty of assault, but still could be civilly liable for slander.

[Niyr]

You need help if you don't think there is a difference between not hiring someone versus harassing/assaulting them.

.... That's quite the compelling legal argument. Almost as good as Jones's attorneys.

This is a forum, not a courtroom. Are you lost? Was that your rebuttal? And yes, there is a huge difference between someone not hiring due to what someone said and someone harassing/assaulting from the same voiced opinion. But what could I expect from someone who walks lockstep with the MSM?

And that difference is....

Upon further internal debate on your example, you are correct, there is no difference between the two.

However, I still find your 'Bob' example to not be equivalent to Jones's situation, as your 'Bob' example is someone slandering with a statement used as a fact, where Jones's was statements of opinion, which he also retracted, though I'm not sure when he did retract exactly, but I'm pretty sure it was before any lawsuit.

[Artaxerxes]

.... That's quite the compelling legal argument. Almost as good as Jones's attorneys.

This is a forum, not a courtroom. Are you lost? Was that your rebuttal? And yes, there is a huge difference between someone not hiring due to what someone said and someone harassing/assaulting from the same voiced opinion. But what could I expect from someone who walks lockstep with the MSM?

And that difference is....

Upon further internal debate on your example, you are correct, there is no difference between the two.

However, I still find your 'Bob' example to not be equivalent to Jones's situation, as your 'Bob' example is someone slandering with a statement used as a fact, where Jones's was statements of opinion, which he also retracted, though I'm not sure when he did retract exactly, but I'm pretty sure it was before any lawsuit.

I think that's a perfectly fair defense. His statements were things like:
“Folks, we’ve got video of Anderson Cooper with clear blue-screen out there. He’s not there in the town square. We got people clearly coming up and laughing and then doing the fake crying. We’ve clearly got people where it’s actors playing different parts for different people, the building bulldozed, covering up everything.”

“I’ve looked at it and undoubtedly there’s a cover-up, there’s actors, they’re manipulating, they’ve been caught lying, and they were pre-planning before it and rolled out with it.”


It's hard to fully parse this kind of statement into being fully a statement of fact or fully a statement of opinion. He's staying three things as facts, but are they in a way that people would interpret them as opinion?

This is where it gets really sticky.

[Separatist]

Tom Woods conversation with the excellent Robert Barnes: The Absurd Alex Jones Trials