Legal Eagle Question

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by nicole » 05 Jul 2018, 12:47

Jennifer wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:40
nicole wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:36
Mo wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:10
Randazza seems to have closed that avenue. If he never believed it, it seems pretty clear that he was making up outrageous lies about the families.

“The First Amendment has never protected demonstrably false, malicious statements like the defendants.'” I was stuck hard, though, by what the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote earlier in the complaint: “Alex Jones does not in fact believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax – and never has.”
Not sure where Randazza comes in at that link?

But in any case the point is that if your whole thing is making up outrageous lies, all the time, and everyone knows that, then you become allowed to do that because no reasonable person would believe you.
Yeah, but we're not talking about "reasonable people"; we're talking about folks who think Alex Jones is an actual news source. (I honestly do not know how much of that comment is serious, and how much is snark.)

FWIW, another Randazza client, Andrew Anglin the neo-Nazi, has tried arguing online that "Andrew Anglin the neo-Nazi" is merely a performance-art character, presumably in hope of making similar legal arguments in the future. (And just a couple days ago Angling lost a defamation lawsuit by default, since neither he nor his lawyer -- not Randazza for that specific case -- bothered showing up.)
You don't have to claim to be a performance artist for the defense I'm talking about. Trump doesn't claim that! He claims he's right and the fakenewsmedia is lying to you about everything. You just have to be a massive fucking liar.

Obviously plenty of people think Trump is a real news source too.

From Ken White's 2017 op-ed:
Early this month, a New York judge dismissed Jacobus' lawsuit, finding that Trump's comments couldn't reasonably be interpreted as statements of provable fact, and therefore couldn't be defamatory. The judge focused on Trump's manner of communicating and how reasonable people understand it: "his tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as 'loser' or 'total loser' or 'totally biased loser,' 'dummy' or 'dope' or 'dumb,' 'zero/no credibility,' 'crazy' or 'wacko,' and 'disaster,' all deflecting serious consideration."
Any reasonable person would not take Jones or anything he said seriously for basically the same reasons.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 05 Jul 2018, 12:51

nicole wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:47
Jennifer wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:40
nicole wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:36
Mo wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:10
Randazza seems to have closed that avenue. If he never believed it, it seems pretty clear that he was making up outrageous lies about the families.

“The First Amendment has never protected demonstrably false, malicious statements like the defendants.'” I was stuck hard, though, by what the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote earlier in the complaint: “Alex Jones does not in fact believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax – and never has.”
Not sure where Randazza comes in at that link?

But in any case the point is that if your whole thing is making up outrageous lies, all the time, and everyone knows that, then you become allowed to do that because no reasonable person would believe you.
Yeah, but we're not talking about "reasonable people"; we're talking about folks who think Alex Jones is an actual news source. (I honestly do not know how much of that comment is serious, and how much is snark.)

FWIW, another Randazza client, Andrew Anglin the neo-Nazi, has tried arguing online that "Andrew Anglin the neo-Nazi" is merely a performance-art character, presumably in hope of making similar legal arguments in the future. (And just a couple days ago Angling lost a defamation lawsuit by default, since neither he nor his lawyer -- not Randazza for that specific case -- bothered showing up.)
You don't have to claim to be a performance artist for the defense I'm talking about. Trump doesn't claim that! He claims he's right and the fakenewsmedia is lying to you about everything. You just have to be a massive fucking liar.

Obviously plenty of people think Trump is a real news source too.

From Ken White's 2017 op-ed:
Early this month, a New York judge dismissed Jacobus' lawsuit, finding that Trump's comments couldn't reasonably be interpreted as statements of provable fact, and therefore couldn't be defamatory. The judge focused on Trump's manner of communicating and how reasonable people understand it: "his tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as 'loser' or 'total loser' or 'totally biased loser,' 'dummy' or 'dope' or 'dumb,' 'zero/no credibility,' 'crazy' or 'wacko,' and 'disaster,' all deflecting serious consideration."
Any reasonable person would not take Jones or anything he said seriously for basically the same reasons.
But the unreasonable people who listen to Jones took him seriously enough to send death threats to the families of the "crisis actors" at Sandy Hook. (If Randazza actually does have a strategy to try getting Jones off the hook, and the strategy is what you laid out here, I HOPE it does not work.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14347
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Aresen » 05 Jul 2018, 12:53

Jones I do not have to take seriously.

Unfortunately, I do have to take Trump seriously. Not because of the truth of what he says, but because of the consequences of what he says.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by nicole » 05 Jul 2018, 12:59

I mean, the unreasonable people who listen to Trump made him fucking president.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 05 Jul 2018, 13:38

Aresen wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:53
Jones I do not have to take seriously.
Nor do I, thankfully, which is why neither of us have any grounds to sue Jones. But the Sandy Hook families did and do.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15890
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by lunchstealer » 05 Jul 2018, 14:36

I do kinda feel like there's a point at which you can demonstrate that people have taken these things as statements of provable fact. And while they may not be wholly reasonable when it comes to what they hear from Trump or Jones, they're probably often functional in everyday life, and probably not diagnosable with any specific disorder that renders them incapable of reason. So by a certain definition, they are reasonable people who believe this shit and act on it.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22828
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Mo » 05 Jul 2018, 17:02

nicole wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:36
Mo wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:10
Randazza seems to have closed that avenue. If he never believed it, it seems pretty clear that he was making up outrageous lies about the families.

“The First Amendment has never protected demonstrably false, malicious statements like the defendants.'” I was stuck hard, though, by what the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote earlier in the complaint: “Alex Jones does not in fact believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax – and never has.”
Not sure where Randazza comes in at that link?

But in any case the point is that if your whole thing is making up outrageous lies, all the time, and everyone knows that, then you become allowed to do that because no reasonable person would believe you.
The quote that I pulled was a quote from his lawyers. I wonder if the fact that Infowars got White House press credentials cuts against Jones. It indicates that someone "reasonable" takes them seriously.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by nicole » 05 Jul 2018, 17:15

Mo wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 17:02
nicole wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:36
Mo wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:10
Randazza seems to have closed that avenue. If he never believed it, it seems pretty clear that he was making up outrageous lies about the families.

“The First Amendment has never protected demonstrably false, malicious statements like the defendants.'” I was stuck hard, though, by what the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote earlier in the complaint: “Alex Jones does not in fact believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax – and never has.”
Not sure where Randazza comes in at that link?

But in any case the point is that if your whole thing is making up outrageous lies, all the time, and everyone knows that, then you become allowed to do that because no reasonable person would believe you.
The quote that I pulled was a quote from his lawyers. I wonder if the fact that Infowars got White House press credentials cuts against Jones. It indicates that someone "reasonable" takes them seriously.
It says it was a quote from the plaintiffs’ attorney?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17886
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 05 Jul 2018, 17:37

You can't avoid liability in a defamation action by prefacing "John is a syphilitic child molester" by adding "In my opinion...." If Jones did, as Jennifer wrote, "claim that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened--according to him, all those mourning parents are lying, because their kids either never existed in the first place, or were paid "crisis actors" faking the whole mass shooting as part of the government's nefarious plan to impose gun control laws," there's no "opinion" defense.

So, without doing any research, which I don't intend to do, it strikes me that the only really open questions would be damages and whether Jones has a defense under Times v. Sullivan; namely, whether the Sandy Hook victims and parents are "public" persons so that they would bear the burden that Jones acted with "actual malice" in that he knew that his statements were false or acted in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 05 Jul 2018, 18:41

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 17:37
whether Jones has a defense under Times v. Sullivan; namely, whether the Sandy Hook victims and parents are "public" persons
[Shudder] If that'll be the argument, I hope it loses. Maybe his argument will make some principled pro-1A argument that'll make me change my mind, but IMO it would set a bad precedent if any private person who unwittingly becomes part of a news event henceforth becomes fair game for any professional paranoia-peddler.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15360
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by dhex » 05 Jul 2018, 22:20

jones deserves a strong defense. he also deserves to get beat up by the parents for being such a spectacular piece of shit.
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12220
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 Jul 2018, 23:33

dhex wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 22:20
jones deserves a strong defense. he also deserves to get beat up by the parents for being such a spectacular piece of shit.
Yup.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14347
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Aresen » 05 Jul 2018, 23:36

dhex wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 22:20
he also deserves to get beat up by the parents for being such a spectacular piece of shit.
Can I have a turn after the parents? I'll bring my own baseball bat.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

Dangerman
Posts: 6214
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Dangerman » 09 Jul 2018, 13:10

... these key questions for starters: Did Jones and his fellow defendants intend to “inflict emotional distress” on the plaintiffs? If not, should Jones have known that such distress would result? Was the conduct of Jones “extreme and outrageous” and, if so, did the families suffer severely as a direct result? Did Jones’s conduct involve an “unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress”?
I don't think that it's possible to nail Jones without destroying a lot of good things, under this theory of the case. I think they're cruising for shame and a settlement. I do not believe that any of the plaintiffs have the desire to slog through a multi year trial over this, but I'm not the parent of a murdered child, so I could have no idea what I'm talking about.

I first heard Alex Jones when I was in Taos in '07. My friend and I were visiting some of his friends, and they had an obviously schizophrenic family member who they had diagnosed as suffering from The Taos Hum, Chemtrails, and hearing government radio transmissions through "stuff the doctors left in him, stuff like fillings".

Of course, they figured out all this by listening to Prison Planet, and treated him by giving him lots of weed and letting him play video games all day.

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15360
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by dhex » 09 Jul 2018, 13:25

if you'd told me back in 2002 that jones would be an actual figure of note (and not notes of laughter) i'd have fallen off my stool. everyone i knew who took him seriously was either making 9/11 truth documentaries or addicted to oxy.
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 09 Jul 2018, 15:38

To be fair, back in 2002 the statement "Donald Trump, president of the United States" also would've resulted in laughter. (And any claims that said POTUS would implement kiddie concentration camps where baby prisoners went months without ever being bathed would be considered unrealistic paranoia.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Dangerman
Posts: 6214
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Dangerman » 10 Jul 2018, 11:16

dhex wrote:
09 Jul 2018, 13:25
if you'd told me back in 2002 that jones would be an actual figure of note (and not notes of laughter) i'd have fallen off my stool. everyone i knew who took him seriously was either making 9/11 truth documentaries or addicted to oxy.
Maybe this is a confession, but after 9/11, I spent a lot of time in Truther space, (successfully) trying to make sure that there wasn't actually anything going on there. I was definitely part of at least once IRL circle where you could ask if anyone else saw the chemtrails without getting laughed at.

Ironically, spending a year on dat raw Ayn Rand, and reading the Illuminatus! books helped disabuse me of the notion that conspiracies were worth worrying about even if they were possible.

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15360
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by dhex » 10 Jul 2018, 11:29

i've spent far too much time around the guys who made loose change. no shame. (my friend was mastering the audio for their documentary. i learned to keep my mouth shut.)
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

Dangerman
Posts: 6214
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Dangerman » 10 Jul 2018, 11:54

My mom still Has Questions About Building 7.

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15360
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by dhex » 10 Jul 2018, 12:17

nyc truthers were a weird breed because so many of us had watched everything go down in real time, some of us from rooftops or porches. their just asking questions mode strained credulity pretty hard.
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 31 Aug 2018, 18:35

A judge in Texas denied Jones' motion to dismiss the Sandy Hook parents' lawsuit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 15941.html
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7741
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Taktix® » 31 Aug 2018, 21:49

Jennifer wrote:A judge in Texas denied Jones' motion to dismiss the Sandy Hook parents' lawsuit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 15941.html
You actual legal people correct me of I'm wrong, but I'm guessing this another one of those circumstances where the media is trying to read too much into the denial of the routine defense tactic of filing a Motion for Summary Judgement before discovery begins?

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk

"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15890
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by lunchstealer » 31 Aug 2018, 21:57

That was my guess.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests