WestTexasAg said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

This was textbook lawfare meant to shut him up and anyone who dares question the narrative. Bye, bye First Amendment.

---

What narrative was he questioning?

---

Reality

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Then agree to disagree, but based on some of the "insensitive" stuff staff cleaned up from last night, I would award them even more.

---

So help them sue whoever posted on texags . Maybe they can get a bilion from them too. No, make it two billion. Ah, hell, may as well make it three.

Old Tom Morris said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Then agree to disagree, but based on some of the "insensitive" stuff staff cleaned up from last night, I would award them even more.

---

So help them sue whoever posted on texags . Maybe they can get a bilion from them too. No, make it two billion. Ah, hell, may as well make it three.

---

To play devil's advocate then, if someone murdered your 5 year old child and then a national media figure repeatedly reported that you were a liar, your child never existed, and kept giving out your information to the point that crazy people started confronting you in person including at your child's grave site, what would you want done?

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Old Tom Morris said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Then agree to disagree, but based on some of the "insensitive" stuff staff cleaned up from last night, I would award them even more.

---

So help them sue whoever posted on texags . Maybe they can get a bilion from them too. No, make it two billion. Ah, hell, may as well make it three.

---

To play devil's advocate then, if someone murdered your 5 year old child and then a national media figure repeatedly reported that you were a liar, your child never existed, and kept giving out your information to the point that crazy people started confronting you in person including at your child's grave site, what would you want done?

---

Just simply avoid those people you feel are a problem. Easy to step out of the limelight tragedy created.

Having read the news from yesterday proceeds, we can now unequivocally say that this:

Quote:

---

It was always about defamation, which was just thrown out.

They won the court battle. 1+1 = 2.

---

Was a complete fantasy.


The defamation case was not thrown out. The only thing thrown out was the LLC's bankruptcy case.

If getting your personal case converted to a Chapter 7 with a trustee taking over is your idea of a "win" then that's quite a low bar for victory.

Im Gipper said:

---

Having read the news from yesterday proceeds, we can now unequivocally say that this:

Quote:

---

It was always about defamation, which was just thrown out.

They won the court battle. 1+1 = 2.

---

Was a complete fantasy.


The defamation case was not thrown out. The only thing thrown out was the LLC's bankruptcy case.

If getting your personal case converted to a Chapter 7 with a trustee taking over is your idea of a "win" then that's quite a low bar for victory.

---

Yeah if I understand it correctly… bankruptcy was probably the easier way out for Free Speech Systems so doesn't sound like a victory in the slightest… quite the opposite of one.

Elder_LarryII said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Elder_LarryII said:

---

Still don't get how his crazy ramblings were illegal , he hurt peoples feelings ? Lol

---

He stepped over the line and slandered people who had their children murdered. It was absolutely despicable.

---

Over whose line exactly ? Who makes that decision

---

I guess the courts and jury did.
Screw him and anyone who supports him.

Elder_LarryII said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

And Remington that had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting was gutted. Now tell me that's not some juicy lawfare. Those attorneys walked away with about $21 million. The hypocrites in this world can't tell me that these are noble pursuits.

https://apnews.com/article/sandy-hook-school-shooting-remington-settlement-e53b95d398ee9b838afc06275a4df403

---

It's gross they exploited death of their kids to get the mean gun companies nothing but grifters

---

"Exploited death of their kids"….
Seriously!
Soulless.
Pray you never have the chance to "exploit" a loved one, much less a young child.
Beyond comprehension…

jteAg said:

---

Elder_LarryII said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Elder_LarryII said:

---

Still don't get how his crazy ramblings were illegal , he hurt peoples feelings ? Lol

---

He stepped over the line and slandered people who had their children murdered. It was absolutely despicable.

---

Over whose line exactly ? Who makes that decision

---

I guess the courts and jury did.
Screw him and anyone who supports him.

---

I support his first amendment right to hurt people's feelings and you realize he retraced his position.

If you want to live in communist state by all means please move

jteAg said:

---

Elder_LarryII said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

And Remington that had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting was gutted. Now tell me that's not some juicy lawfare. Those attorneys walked away with about $21 million. The hypocrites in this world can't tell me that these are noble pursuits.

https://apnews.com/article/sandy-hook-school-shooting-remington-settlement-e53b95d398ee9b838afc06275a4df403

---

It's gross they exploited death of their kids to get the mean gun companies nothing but grifters

---

"Exploited death of their kids"….
Seriously!
Soulless.
Pray you never have the chance to "exploit" a loved one, much less a young child.
Beyond comprehension…

---

More triggered fact-less posts

How was Remington to blame ?

jteAg said:

---

I guess the courts and jury did.
Screw him and anyone who supports him.

---

lol screw anyone who doesn't understand he's being taken out because he has a massive pro 2A anti-neolib platform.

Ervin Burrell said:

---

ToddyHill said:

---

I am at a loss for words to read that some of you feel the families are grifters. Bottom line, Alex Jones was flat out wrong from the get-go. This is not a situation where an innocent man was found guilty...he dug his own grave.

I suppose those that lost loved ones should have just kept their mouth shut while Jones slandered them and made money at their expense. This was not about money...and everyone knows that.

Hard to believe, but the first graders that survived that day graduated from Newtown High School two days ago.

---

Yup, pretty sickening and ironic to see somebody with the username "Aggie4Life" call people who had their young children slaughtered "grifters" and have zero regard for what they went through. Zero chance he'd say that to any of their faces. Though sadly I'm not surprised that a post telling parents who had their kids executed "hey, eff you…you're nothing but a bunch of grifters" has garnered nearly 100 stars.

---

[If you return with a new handle and continue the same chronic trolling pattern, that one will have a short life too -- Staff]

TRADUCTOR said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Old Tom Morris said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Then agree to disagree, but based on some of the "insensitive" stuff staff cleaned up from last night, I would award them even more.

---

So help them sue whoever posted on texags . Maybe they can get a bilion from them too. No, make it two billion. Ah, hell, may as well make it three.

---

To play devil's advocate then, if someone murdered your 5 year old child and then a national media figure repeatedly reported that you were a liar, your child never existed, and kept giving out your information to the point that crazy people started confronting you in person including at your child's grave site, what would you want done?

---

Just simply avoid those people you feel are a problem. Easy to step out of the limelight tragedy created.

---

How do you avoid people coming to your house demanding to see your kid, harassing you ar their grave, and making death threats to you?

Ervin Burrell said:

---

ToddyHill said:

---

I am at a loss for words to read that some of you feel the families are grifters. Bottom line, Alex Jones was flat out wrong from the get-go. This is not a situation where an innocent man was found guilty...he dug his own grave.

I suppose those that lost loved ones should have just kept their mouth shut while Jones slandered them and made money at their expense. This was not about money...and everyone knows that.

Hard to believe, but the first graders that survived that day graduated from Newtown High School two days ago.

---

Yup, pretty sickening and ironic to see somebody with the username "Aggie4Life" call people who had their young children slaughtered "grifters" and have zero regard for what they went through. Zero chance he'd say that to any of their faces. Though sadly I'm not surprised that a post telling parents who had their kids executed "hey, eff you…you're nothing but a bunch of grifters" has garnered nearly 100 stars.

---

"Opportunists" is probably a better term. But glad the term "grifter" has degenerate baby killing libs upset, so I'll allow it. Really the problem most people have with it is the clear fact that this is another example of the increasing political lawfare on this country. Oh and the absurd settlement amount…for saying mean things.

He hasn't paid a dollar to the claimants yet, and meanwhile he spent his wealth down from 200-250m now to $10m.

A lot of that was very likely "paid" to people who will "pay him back" over the course of time, with favors the courts can't confiscate.

He still has a platform and he will restructure in a way to monetize that platform outside of the courts. He'll likely just have his father start a new media company and make that rich.




I'm personally not a fan of his, and I don't consider him a conservative. But to say he has lost this thing ignores a lot of the truth and is really a lot of wishful thinking from ideologues.

Elder_LarryII said:

---

I support his first amendment right to hurt people's feelings Li

---

Libel and slander are not protected by the First Amendment.

Im Gipper said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Cheerleading lawfare.

---

When you call anything you don't like "lawfare" you take away from the legitimate use of the term. Lawfare is used by Dems to bring down Trump and others.

Alex Jones defamed people, refused to participate in basic discovery, and now has to lie in the bed he made.

This has nothing to do with lawfare.

---

Be careful. Logic is not well received here. Emotions and very selective outrage rule the day.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Old Tom Morris said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Then agree to disagree, but based on some of the "insensitive" stuff staff cleaned up from last night, I would award them even more.

---

So help them sue whoever posted on texags . Maybe they can get a bilion from them too. No, make it two billion. Ah, hell, may as well make it three.

---

To play devil's advocate then, if someone murdered your 5 year old child and then a national media figure repeatedly reported that you were a liar, your child never existed, and kept giving out your information to the point that crazy people started confronting you in person including at your child's grave site, what would you want done?

---

Just simply avoid those people you feel are a problem. Easy to step out of the limelight tragedy created.

---

How do you avoid people coming to your house demanding to see your kid, harassing you ar their grave, and making death threats to you?

---

He literally yelled fire at a crowded movie theater. He will meet his maker and then be directed to hell. Whimpering all the way. I think a stroke will be justice rearing its head.

Bearpitbull said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Old Tom Morris said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Then agree to disagree, but based on some of the "insensitive" stuff staff cleaned up from last night, I would award them even more.

---

So help them sue whoever posted on texags . Maybe they can get a bilion from them too. No, make it two billion. Ah, hell, may as well make it three.

---

To play devil's advocate then, if someone murdered your 5 year old child and then a national media figure repeatedly reported that you were a liar, your child never existed, and kept giving out your information to the point that crazy people started confronting you in person including at your child's grave site, what would you want done?

---

Just simply avoid those people you feel are a problem. Easy to step out of the limelight tragedy created.

---

How do you avoid people coming to your house demanding to see your kid, harassing you ar their grave, and making death threats to you?

---

He literally yelled fire at a crowded movie theater.

---

He didnt, but even the above phrase, although commonly used in this way, is permissible speech

https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

pacecar02 said:

---

Bearpitbull said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

Old Tom Morris said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Then agree to disagree, but based on some of the "insensitive" stuff staff cleaned up from last night, I would award them even more.

---

So help them sue whoever posted on texags . Maybe they can get a bilion from them too. No, make it two billion. Ah, hell, may as well make it three.

---

To play devil's advocate then, if someone murdered your 5 year old child and then a national media figure repeatedly reported that you were a liar, your child never existed, and kept giving out your information to the point that crazy people started confronting you in person including at your child's grave site, what would you want done?

---

Just simply avoid those people you feel are a problem. Easy to step out of the limelight tragedy created.

---

How do you avoid people coming to your house demanding to see your kid, harassing you ar their grave, and making death threats to you?

---

He literally yelled fire at a crowded movie theater.

---

He didnt, but even the above phrase, although commonly used in this way, is permissible speech

https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

---

It may be permissible as far as the government is concerned, but that has no bearing on the implications when it comes to suits between private parties. You may have every right to say something, but that doesn't mean you can't be successfully sued for saying it.

Muy said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Cheerleading lawfare.

---

Exactly, why should any families get his personal money? Did he shoot their kids?

---

The more it's evident some don't see the problem with what Jones did using his platform, the more the fringe reveal themselves and do not represent most conservatives. They seem to see this judgement as some political attack that goes against conservative ideals. Alex Jones didn't shoot their kids but he disgraced their lives caused a great deal of harm to their parents all to gain listeners and ad dollars. So it is more than fitting that the success he garnered should be returned to this he used. How people don't get this speaks to the sociopathy out there

Elder_LarryII said:

---

jteAg said:

---

Elder_LarryII said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Elder_LarryII said:

---

Still don't get how his crazy ramblings were illegal , he hurt peoples feelings ? Lol

---

He stepped over the line and slandered people who had their children murdered. It was absolutely despicable.

---

Over whose line exactly ? Who makes that decision

---

I guess the courts and jury did.
Screw him and anyone who supports him.

---

I support his first amendment right to hurt people's feelings and you realize he retraced his position.

If you want to live in communist state by all means please move

---

I support his first amendment right to be an *******, too. But this has NEVER been a first amendment case. Frankly, I'm astonished at the number of people here that don't seem to get that.

Lol, the stated goal was to shutdown INFOWARS

That is an attack on the first amendment

And what is this BS, IT WAS A CIVIL SUIT BETWEEN 2 PARTIES

What does that mean?

There are no free speech concerns or other civil rights concerns between two parties?



He made statements

He retracted statements



How is a over a billing dollars nudgement a legitimate verdict?

I don't see it,

And yeah I think AJ can be a huge ass



Some of you seem happy to silence an individual with billion dollar judgements after he retracted his statements. We will never agree i suppose

pacecar02 said:

---

Lol, the stated goal was to shutdown INFOWARS

That is an attack on the first amendment

And what is this BS, IT WAS A CIVIL SUIT BETWEEN 2 PARTIES

What does that mean?

There are no free speech concerns or other civil rights concerns between two parties?



He made statements

He retracted statements



How is a over a billing dollars nudgement a legitimate verdict?

I don't see it,

And yeah I think AJ can be a huge ass



Some of you seem happy to silence an individual with billion dollar judgements after he retracted his statements. We will never agree i suppose

---

Except that the decision was not based on the facts of the case but rather that Jones refused to comply with the court's repeated and on-going demands to produce discovery information.

Jones did this to himself. If he wanted a trial on the facts and merits he should have complied with the court's orders.

This wouldn't at all be possible without the help of a tyrannical gov pulling strings. The left celebrates that now. But when the pendulum swings the other direction they will scream foul.

pacecar02 said:

---

That is an attack on the first amendment

And what is this BS, IT WAS A CIVIL SUIT BETWEEN 2 PARTIES

What does that mean?

There are no free speech concerns or other civil rights concerns between two parties?

---

Generally, no, there aren't. Civil rights are to protect you from the government, not everyone else. That's why Congress can't pass a law making it illegal to lie but people can still sue you for defamation.

No one ever denied Jones his civil rights or tried to. He said everything he wanted. No one stopped him or attempted to stop him. What they did is sue him for defamation and damages resulting from it, and he was given due process. He refused to participate, so he has no room to complain about being ruled against. He was given every opportunity and his day on court and he refused.

BlueTaze said:

---

This wouldn't at all be possible without the help of a tyrannical gov pulling strings. The left celebrates that now. But when the pendulum swings the other direction they will scream foul.

---

So how did the tyrannical government pulling strings get Jones to refuse to participate in discovery and have the plaintiffs awarded summary judgement? You can't just refuse to participate and then claim to be the victim when you lose

I'm talking about the size. No justification whatsoever for this monetary judgement. If you got it, let's hear it......?

BlueTaze said:

---

I'm talking about the size. No justification whatsoever for this monetary judgement. If you got it, let's hear it......?

---

Let's turn the tables. You are rendering damages on a defendant as part of a jury. You have to go by facts presented to you when doing so. The plaintiffs have presented facts as they see them to back their damages claims. The defendants do nothing of relevance to defend themselves.

What do you do?

This is what's happened here. Jones' team had loads of time to work within the system to limit damages or even completely clear their liability in this case. But… they didn't. Jones played games, went through I think 7 or 8 legal teams and refused to participate in discovery. Clock ran out and he was guilty by default. Then in he sentencing phase, it was the same thing.

On paper, I agree with you, the judgement seems steep… but it was based on a jury's conclusion with what they had to work with. I don't see how anybody can really argue anything but this is a classic case of **** around and find out.

Quote:

---

That is an attack on the first amendment

And what is this BS, IT WAS A CIVIL SUIT BETWEEN 2 PARTIES

What does that mean?

There are no free speech concerns or other civil rights concerns between two parties?

---

Quote:

---

Generally, no, there aren't. Civil rights are to protect you from the government, not everyone else.

---

When you are seeking a judgment signed by government and to be enforced by government, it does become a potential First Amendment issue.


As several posters have said, the First Amendment does not give one a right of o defame others.


The same people that refuse to accept that also keep pushing the "Jones retracted it" red herring. Jones kept telling the Sandy Hook lies as late as 2017. You can't claim to have retracted a defamatory statement then keep saying it.

The same people will now fall for Jones lie that that the defamation case was thrown out and that Jones "won" in bankruptcy court.

For the record, put me on the "the amount of this judgment is outrageous" side. Even with no defense presented, the amount awarded is far outside what is appropriate.

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

That is an attack on the first amendment

And what is this BS, IT WAS A CIVIL SUIT BETWEEN 2 PARTIES

What does that mean?

There are no free speech concerns or other civil rights concerns between two parties?

---

Quote:

---

Generally, no, there aren't. Civil rights are to protect you from the government, not everyone else.

---

For the record, put me on the "the amount of this judgment is outrageous" side. Even with no defense presented, the amount awarded is far outside what is appropriate.

---

Maybe but I'll ask what the alternative was for the jury? I don't think the defense even tried to present precedent for a 'fair' judgement. So what's the jury supposed to do?

This story is interesting because it is Alex Jones and some pretty vile actors around him like Wolfgang Halbjg being involved. But when you stack the lack of effort put in by the defense, the result itself really isn't that interesting in my opinion.

Quote:

---

So what's the jury supposed to do?

---

Write a lower number on the verdict form.

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

So what's the jury supposed to do?

---

Write a lower number on the verdict form.

---

On what basis other than their feelings?

I'm agree that the verdict feels high. But based on my understanding of what was presented as evidence in the sentencing phase, I'm not sure I'd personally have what might be needed to suggest a lower number than what the plaintiffs asked for.

I think you may be confused as to what occurred. There was no sentencing, this was not a criminal trial.

There was no evidence presented that the mental anguish suffered by the parents was worth a certain dollar figure. That is all from argument and the decision of the jury.

If a plaintiff ask for $1 billion in damages, and the defendant says the damages should be $1000, the jury is still free to award any number they want. One of those numbers, higher than 1 billion, less than 1000, or somewhere in between. It is completely their determination.

Panama Red said:

---

I think you may be confused as to what occurred. There was no sentencing, this was not a criminal trial.

There was no evidence presented that the mental anguish suffered by the parents was worth a certain dollar figure. That is all from argument and the decision of the jury.

If a plaintiff ask for $1 billion in damages, and the defendant says the damages should be $1000, the jury is still free to award any number they want. One of those numbers, higher than 1 billion, less than 1000, or somewhere in between. It is completely their determination.

---

No… I get it. Alex's side presented no case when it came to fact of whether or not they defamed the parents. So by default what the jury had to do as a null is start with the fact that he defamed them.

What the plaintiffs did was presented the case that they went through hell for a number of years as a result… they made an emotional case.

What the jury had to play with is what the plaintiffs said this was all worth to them, some loose evidence of what Alex benefitted as a result of that. Alex's defense had a chance to refute that with facts… but they didnt.

Effectively, the jury had one side of the story and the other side didn't answer the bell at all. As such, I still maintain they didn't have much of an actual choice.