Another day in court for Alex, another defeat

[Tommy Tainant]

Third Sandy Hook parent wins defamation case against Alex Jones

US radio host Alex Jones called the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting a "hoax"

www.independent.co.uk

So a third victim is granted compensation for the sick lies that this fat bastard has been spreading for years. Other families have a different case in the Conneticut courts as well.

Its all very positive.

Rot in hell ALex. Thats where you are going to.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

His defense in court was "only a stupid person would believe anything I say."

I wonder how his audience felt upon hearing him say that?

 

[FA_Q2]

His defense in court was "only a stupid person would believe anything I say."

I wonder how his audience felt upon hearing him say that?

Seriously!

ROFLMAO. Well, he ain't wrong.

 

[MarcATL]

I pray think completely tanks him.

 

[White 6]

Third Sandy Hook parent wins defamation case against Alex Jones

US radio host Alex Jones called the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting a "hoax"

www.independent.co.uk

So a third victim is granted compensation for the sick lies that this fat bastard has been spreading for years. Other families have a different case in the Conneticut courts as well.

Its all very positive.

Rot in hell ALex. Thats where you are going to.

He's just a carnival huckster.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

His defense in court was "only a stupid person would believe anything I say."

That is the right wing defense for everything now.

Tucker used it

Trump's lawyers used it

 

[rightwinger]

Third Sandy Hook parent wins defamation case against Alex Jones

US radio host Alex Jones called the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting a "hoax"

www.independent.co.uk

So a third victim is granted compensation for the sick lies that this fat bastard has been spreading for years. Other families have a different case in the Conneticut courts as well.

Its all very positive.

Rot in hell ALex. Thats where you are going to.

There is a special spot in Hell reserved for Alex Jones

 

[theHawk]

Third Sandy Hook parent wins defamation case against Alex Jones

US radio host Alex Jones called the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting a "hoax"

www.independent.co.uk

So a third victim is granted compensation for the sick lies that this fat bastard has been spreading for years. Other families have a different case in the Conneticut courts as well.

Its all very positive.

Rot in hell ALex. Thats where you are going to.

How is it “defamation”?
Did these parents lose income because of his opinions?
People will say crazy things about anything, I don’t see how it entitles people to sue them. Defamation would be saying lies that effects a business or the ability to be employed.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

How is it “defamation”?
Did these parents lose income because of his opinions?
People will say crazy things about anything, I don’t see how it entitles people to sue them. Defamation would be saying lies that effects a business or the ability to be employed.

Only a pig like you would try and defend this.

 

[rightwinger]

How is it “defamation”?
Did these parents lose income because of his opinions?
People will say crazy things about anything, I don’t see how it entitles people to sue them. Defamation would be saying lies that effects a business or the ability to be employed.

Or your emotional well being

 

[FA_Q2]

Only a pig like you would try and defend this.

There is nothing wrong with challenging the legal ramifications of any action no matter what you think of the underlying morality of them.

Just because Jones is a miserable person does not mean that he does not have a right to defense or that any action the government takes against him is justified.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

There is nothing wrong with challenging the legal ramifications of any action no matter what you think of the underlying morality of them.

Just because Jones is a miserable person does not mean that he does not have a right to defense or that any action the government takes against him is justified.

There is no legitimate defence for his actions other than he is a crazy person who should be in an asylum somewhere.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is no legitimate defence for his actions other than he is a crazy person who should be in an asylum somewhere.

Who said anything about defending his actions?

I was talking about the govnermental ramification to those actions and yes, there is a discussion to be had there. Unless you think mob justice is the way to go.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Only a pig like you would try and defend this.

Wow Dimmer you oink pretty loud yourself to be calling anyone else a pig.

 

[john doe 101]

How is it “defamation”?
Did these parents lose income because of his opinions?
People will say crazy things about anything, I don’t see how it entitles people to sue them. Defamation would be saying lies that effects a business or the ability to be employed.

Defamation, by definition, has nothing to do with loss of income, dumbass. Look up the definition of defamation before you open your dumb mouth.

 

[MarathonMike]

Pretty boring in Wales, eh Tommy? Isn't there a big sheep festival right about now? That ought to be exciting.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Who said anything about defending his actions?

I was talking about the govnermental ramification to those actions and yes, there is a discussion to be had there. Unless you think mob justice is the way to go.

The government are not a party to the action. The complainants are seeking redress for foul stories spread about them by a sick fuck. Nobody is poisoning the water here.

Jones is not a victim. If he could behave like an adult he wouldnt be in this situation.

 

[theHawk]

Defamation, by definition, has nothing to do with loss of income, dumbass. Look up the definition of defamation before you open your dumb mouth.

Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation.

So how did Alex’s comments “injure” the reputation of the parents?

 

[john doe 101]

Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation.

So how did Alex’s comments “injure” the reputation of the parents?

I'll quote from I'm guessing the same website you went to in order to get that definition:

"To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 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 person or entity who is the subject of the statement."

1 and 2 Alex did you cant deny that. 3 I would argue Alex was negligent in making those remarks and 4. How was harm caused? LOL really? To the memory of their child. From getting death threats.

All of this is immaterial though as I believe with the first case, Alex Jones just basically gave up.


"In Thursday's ruling, a Texas judge said Mr Jones had repeatedly failed to hand over legal documents and evidence to the court to support his claims about the attack. As a result, a default judgement was issued.
Judge Maya Guerra Gamble wrote that Mr Jones and other defendants had shown "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard" by not turning over the files." Sandy Hook: Alex Jones loses case over 'hoax' remarks

 

[Dana7360]

Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation.

So how did Alex’s comments “injure” the reputation of the parents?

What you fail to realize is that the case is over.

He has already been found guilty.

They are at the stage if awarding financial consequences.

If you want to know how jones' lies injured the plaintiffs in this case, read the court documents. They are a matter of public record.

I won't be surprised if you don't give a rat's ass how those people were injured. If you honestly wanted to know the answer to your question you could have found it yourself but you didn't.

So if you honestly wanted to know the answer, go find it yourself. It's already been established and proven in a court of law and is in the formal documents.

If you have a problem with it, take it up with the judge and jury.

No one on this board can change the outcome so all you're doing is trying to defend the indefensible.

And not doing a very good job.

You are under the narcissistic assumption that what you think and want matters to anyone or anything. It doesn't.

All you are is a lame person on a message board.

So if you want to rant and rave, go for it, just don't expect intelligent people to pay any attention to you.

You can reply to this all you want. I'm not going to read it. I don't usually read your posts but this one just caught my eye because it's so stupid, lame and tells everyone you don't even know what's going on in this case.