Legal Eagle Question

[nicole]

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.

[Jennifer]

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.)

[Aresen]

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.

[nicole]

I mean, the unreasonable people who listen to Trump made him fucking president.

[Jennifer]

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.

[lunchstealer]

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.

[Mo]

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.

[nicole]

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?

[D.A. Ridgely]

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.

[Jennifer]

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.

[dhex]

jones deserves a strong defense. he also deserves to get beat up by the parents for being such a spectacular piece of shit.

[Eric the .5b]

jones deserves a strong defense. he also deserves to get beat up by the parents for being such a spectacular piece of shit.

Yup.

[Aresen]

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.

[Dangerman]

... 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.

[dhex]

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.

[Jennifer]

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.)

[Dangerman]

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.

[dhex]

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.)

[Dangerman]

My mom still Has Questions About Building 7.

[dhex]

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.

[Jennifer]

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

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 15941.html

[Taktix®]

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

[lunchstealer]

That was my guess.

[D.A. Ridgely]

So it seems. I don't practice in Texas and I don't know Jones's defense strategy, but you typically throw up whatever you can in hopes something will stick.

[Jennifer]

Jones is now claiming (in a deposition) that a "form of psychosis" made him question the Sandy Hook and other narratives. What the .... given that this is IIRC a civil rather than criminal trial, won't this harm rather than help him? It's like, if you're suing me because I broke your window, and I counter "It was an accident, not deliberate, 'twas an uncontrollable muscle spasm that made me lob that baseball at your picture window (or even "really shitty aim on my part")" ... if you or the court believe me, that will help me avoid CRIMINAL charges for deliberately breaking your window ... but I'm pretty sure that civilly, I'd still be on the hook for your actual financial cost of replacing it, no? And perhaps also if I countered "Well, yeah, I did throw the rock at your window, but only because I suffered a form of psychosis that actually made me think your window was, like, a big threatening guy coming after me" -- okay, fine, if I say this in a criminal trial and you believe me, I MIGHT get a "not guilty by reason of insanity" ruling ... but wouldn't I still be liable for civil damages?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/30/us/alex- ... 1554060565