Alex Jones verdict

[MillCreek]

My question has to do with the settlement not whether or not he was sued in the first place

It was not a settlement.  The two sides did not agree on an amount to resolve the case.  It is a verdict awarded by the jury. 

[Tuco]

A $20 million settlement would have been a real world number that actually affected him

Twenty million sounds appropriate (as half of the damn fool's net worth) But $10 million is hardly enough compensation for the talented attorneys who brokered the whole charade.

[WLJ]

It was not a settlement.  The two sides did not agree on an amount to resolve the case.  It is a verdict awarded by the jury.

Whoops you're right. Got stuck on the term settlement.
Replace settlement with verdict awarded in the question.

[MechAg94]

I'm not going to make assumptions about the jury as I don't know who they are, but I don't think the people suing him (parents of murdered children) care as much about his political stances. They're suing him for what he said about them and their children and, yes, I do believe they want to bury him in debt for what he did to them. I suspect he will suffer far less than they have, at least in this life.

From what I heard (I did not watch the trial), the case was decided based on what other people said that he said.  In the Texas trial, he wasn't allowed to present clips of his own show that might disagree with the edited clips the prosecution presented or maybe show he later changed his mind and possibly apologized.  The judge tied their hands a bit from what I heard.  Jones was on Crowder today.  He claims he has no connection to the people who harassed the victims.  Typically, that shouldn't mean he is responsible for their actions.  I am sure appeals will eventually happen.  I have heard you have to put some of the money in bond before appealing in some cases.  Not sure about these.



IMO, the amusing part of all this is Alex Jones has been banned from every internet platform.  This lawsuit has put him in the news and has probably let to more people hearing him speak who never heard him before.  The left could just ignore him, but they aren't capable of that.  Hell, I never watched him before he was banned.  Now I have seen him on other shows and I think more people of aware of Infowars than ever before.  I don't think this will shut him up or prevent him from continuing his show. 

[Ben]

From what I heard (I did not watch the trial), the case was decided based on what other people said that he said.  In the Texas trial, he wasn't allowed to present clips of his own show that might disagree with the edited clips the prosecution presented or maybe show he later changed his mind and possibly apologized.  The judge tied their hands a bit from what I heard.  Jones was on Crowder today.  He claims he has no connection to the people who harassed the victims.  Typically, that shouldn't mean he is responsible for their actions.  I am sure appeals will eventually happen.  I have heard you have to put some of the money in bond before appealing in some cases.  Not sure about these.

I actually have not even seen his side of the story, so I may be pre or wrongly judging him myself. I've only seen what the MSM has wanted me to see.

[MechAg94]

I actually have not even seen his side of the story, so I may be pre or wrongly judging him myself. I've only seen what the MSM has wanted me to see.

Rekieta Law covered both trials if you want to see them.  Nick Rekieta is entertaining, but I cant' listen to his multi-hour streams very often.  Too much other content to watch.   

My main issue with this is if it is okay to sue him solely for saying distasteful opinions, does that mean it is okay to sue anyone who has an opinion on the internet?  I get that some people seem seem to hate the guy, but that doesn't mean he should get dragged into court solely for his speech.  We have already seen that courts don't hold the mainstream media to this standard.  Cases against them get thrown out easily.

[dogmush]

Rekieta Law covered both trials if you want to see them.  Nick Rekieta is entertaining, but I cant' listen to his multi-hour streams very often.  Too much other content to watch.   

My main issue with this is if it is okay to sue him solely for saying distasteful opinions, does that mean it is okay to sue anyone who has an opinion on the internet?  I get that some people seem seem to hate the guy, but that doesn't mean he should get dragged into court solely for his speech.  We have already seen that courts don't hold the mainstream media to this standard.  Cases against them get thrown out easily.

That is not what he was sued for.

He was sued for defamation.  What exactly defamation requires varies by state, but the general rule is: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.  You can believe, as I'm sure Alex does that his fault didn't rise to negligence, but that was the main question before the jury, and they disagree.

Personally I think he knew he was lying and didn't care because it dragged in the infowars clicks, but I wasn't on the jury either.

In any case, you can still say distasteful opinions, but you can't slander people.  Had what hew was saying been true, no matter how distasteful, he'd have been fine.

[DittoHead]

It is obvious from your comments above that you have a personal dislike/hatred of Jones.

I wouldn't consider it personal, I have no connection to him or those he defamed. I'll admit that I do find it particularly heinous that he targeted grieving parents of young children and that significantly lowers my opinion of him.

My main issue with this is if it is okay to sue him solely for saying distasteful opinions, does that mean it is okay to sue anyone who has an opinion on the internet?

I think there is a line between opinion and defamation that can be murky. I don't think this case was on the edge of that line - he flagrantly and repeatedly crossed it even after he knew better because it was making him money. The plaintiffs were able to show real-world harm that happened as a result and that is one of the key items that is missing from many defamation claims.

[MechAg94]

That is not what he was sued for.

He was sued for defamation.  What exactly defamation requires varies by state, but the general rule is: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.  You can believe, as I'm sure Alex does that his fault didn't rise to negligence, but that was the main question before the jury, and they disagree.

Personally I think he knew he was lying and didn't care because it dragged in the infowars clicks, but I wasn't on the jury either.

In any case, you can still say distasteful opinions, but you can't slander people.  Had what hew was saying been true, no matter how distasteful, he'd have been fine.

I get the impression the judges and juries agreed with those last statements whether they could prove it or not. 

Regardless of being able to show damages as Dittohead mentioned, I don't think this comes anywhere close to the standard that the MSM has been held to.  Maybe they have better lawyers.  Oh well, just my opinion, so sue me.   

Timcast IRL posted a video talking about it.  He thought actual damages were justified, but the punitive damages were stupid and just make it more likely those people will never see a dime.  He said the lawyers were telling the jury to make the judgement so high it will destroy Jones.  IMO, that is nuts. 

[RoadKingLarry]

Meaningless judgement. Jones can't pay it will never be able to. The only "people"* that will get pId are the lawyers.


* I don't really consider lawyers as a species as being people.

[bedlamite]

Everything I've seen about this trial tells me it's just another political show.

Everything I've seen since has reinforced my previous comment.

Here's the Viva/Barnes summary of this show trial:

https://youtu.be/iDnYVPq7Q4c?t=373

Our legal system is broken.

[HankB]

. . . In the Texas trial, he wasn't allowed to present clips of his own show that might disagree with the edited clips the prosecution presented or maybe show he later changed his mind and possibly apologized.  The judge tied their hands a bit from what I heard . . .

If what you heard here is true, it's very disturbing. (I still don't like Alex Jones, but I like kangaroo courts even less.)

[Ben]

Everything I've seen since has reinforced my previous comment.

Here's the Viva/Barnes summary of this show trial:

https://youtu.be/iDnYVPq7Q4c?t=373

Our legal system is broken.

Wow. At two hours, I don't have the time this minute to watch the whole thing, but I ran through the "most replayed" parts, and my opinion on this is changing. Similar to Hank, maybe not in support of Jones, but in dislike of a broken system. This is sounding like railroading.

[WLJ]

Has there been any attempt to tie him to Jan 6?

[Perd Hapley]

The few - very few - times I've seen or heard Alex Jones I recognized he was spouting utterly asinine nonsense. But I see that as no different than what people in the media do every day of the week on CNN, MSDNC, the Huffington Post, and so forth and so on.

The mainstream misinformation media.

[MechAg94]

Has there been any attempt to tie him to Jan 6?

Not sure about in the trial, but Yes.  I don't know much about it, but I heard he was at Trump's rally, but not at the Capitol. 

[bedlamite]

Not sure about in the trial, but Yes.  I don't know much about it, but I heard he was at Trump's rally, but not at the Capitol.

He was at the Capitol, but he was standing in the back of his Hummer with a megaphone telling people that it was a setup and not to go in.

ETA the side of the story that the msm won't tell you:
https://79days.news/watch?id=5ff74f7d1669d333f2b28be4

[DittoHead]

I will never understand why people use videos to explain political\legal procedure stuff like this where visuals aren't necessary.
Unless they are trying to persuade more than inform, then it's the perfect format.
If anyone has links to read about problems with these trials I would love to check them out.

[MechAg94]

I will never understand why people use videos to explain political\legal procedure stuff like this where visuals aren't necessary.
Unless they are trying to persuade more than inform, then it's the perfect format.
If anyone has links to read about problems with these trials I would love to check them out.

I don't see anything written.  Even the stuff I found that appears to be against Jones is just political grandstanding by attorneys with little actual meat from the trial. 


I saw a few things that jogged my memory.  Not much. 
1.  He said he didn't have any text messages about Sandy Hook.  His lawyer mistakenly sent a copy of his entire phone and they found a couple of texts mentioning it.  I don't think the texts said anything big, but the judge took that badly. 
2.  In the Texas trial, the plaintiff lawyers played edited videos to prove he said what they claimed.  Jones said in an interview that they were not allowed to play their own videos to refute that.
3.  The judge (at least in the Texas trial) ruled they could not use free speech as a defense in trial.  There may have been other limits, but that stuck out. 

[dogmush]

Free speech is not a defense against slander, so I'm not surprised that was ruled out.

The article I saw said that Jones was not allowed to show his own videos to counter the plaintiff's videos because his team refused to comply with the court rules on discovery to admit the evidence.  If that's the case, it's his own fault. (or his lawyers)

[DittoHead]

I saw a few things that jogged my memory.  Not much. 

1. Judges don't tend to like it when defendants withhold relevant documents during discovery.
2. Can't really comment without more info, especially if Jones is the only source on this claim.
3. There were a LOT of courtroom antics from Jones that judge put up with. A similar thing is going on right now with the guy who drove into the Christmas parade, although he appears to be much crazier than Jones. Judges will put up with a lot but at some point their patience wears thin. I know there was a point, probably multiple, where the judge made clear that he needed to stop ranting about completely unrelated topics and answer the question (or don't answer, but then be quiet). Since this was a civil suit between private citizens, I can see how the relevance of the 1st amendment might be limited and how the judge may have to remind Jones of that... repeatedly.

[sumpnz]

Free speech is not a defense against slander, so I'm not surprised that was ruled out.

The article I saw said that Jones was not allowed to show his own videos to counter the plaintiff's videos because his team refused to comply with the court rules on discovery to admit the evidence.  If that's the case, it's his own fault. (or his lawyers)

From the tiny amount I saw of the trial his lawyers made the Keystone Cops look like well  organized and professional police.

[bedlamite]

I will never understand why people use videos to explain political\legal procedure stuff like this where visuals aren't necessary.
Unless they are trying to persuade more than inform, then it's the perfect format.
If anyone has links to read about problems with these trials I would love to check them out.

Years ago I preferred talk radio over text format, That way I can listen while doing something else. That continues with either video or podcasts that can be downloaded and played later at a convenient time and you usually don't have to watch, in fact videos like the Viva/Barnes I posted there's really no point to the video, just the audio. Also, text online can and has easily been modified by those that control the servers, it's much tougher to do that with A/V.

[gunsmith]

i have an old friend, he is still quite sure that jones was right and that the shooting was fake and that there are crisis actors at these events ...

jones ruins serious conversations about real world problems


 I think jones is some kind of asset to some state agency .... the enemies like china or putin or ours or maybe even all three or gawd only knows  , oddly enough tho I really like some of the alt media he supported  ... sav says, millennial millie, paul joseph watson

[MillCreek]

Free speech is not a defense against slander, so I'm not surprised that was ruled out.

The article I saw said that Jones was not allowed to show his own videos to counter the plaintiff's videos because his team refused to comply with the court rules on discovery to admit the evidence.  If that's the case, it's his own fault. (or his lawyers)

In law, we talk about client control problems, where the client does not follow legal advice or the recommendations of their counsel.  I would not at all be surprised if Mr. Jones was selective in terms of which advice he followed from his lawyers.  That is often to the detriment of the client, when they lose the case or are sanctioned by the court.