╌>

Sandy Hook Parents Sue Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones for Defamation

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  larry-hampton  •  6 years ago  •  25 comments

Sandy Hook Parents Sue Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones for Defamation


AUSTIN, TEXAS (REUTERS)   - The parents of two children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre have sued conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for defamation, accusing him and his website InfoWars of engaging in a campaign of "false, cruel, and dangerous assertions."



The two lawsuits filed on Monday in Travis County, Texas, where Jones resides, are likely the first defamation cases concerning Sandy Hook brought against Jones, who has called the shooting a hoax, said Mark Bankston, a Houston-based lawyer for the parents.



The parents decided to sue more than five years after the attacks because they had concluded Jones has no intention of leaving them alone, Bankston said.

~LINK~



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Quiet
1  seeder  Larry Hampton    6 years ago

"He needs to held accountable," Bankston said in a phone interview. "The strategy of ignoring him didn't work, He didn't go away."

Jones and a lawyer for him named in the lawsuits did not respond to requests to comment. Jones' InfoWars media site and affiliated Free Speech Systems were also named as defendants.

A gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on Dec. 14, 2012, in an attack that ranks among the five deadliest mass shootings by a single gunman in U.S. history.

InfoWars founder Jones has questioned what he calls the "official story" of Sandy Hook and suggested a political cover-up took place. Although his theory has been discredited, people who believe Jones have harassed and taunted families of the victims.

The suits filed by Leonard Pozner, Veronique De La Rosa and Neil Heslin seek at least $1 million in damages. Each claims Jones repeatedly asserted the Sandy Hook shooting was staged and the parents were liars and frauds who helped in a cover-up.

"Defendants' defamatory statements were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth," one lawsuit said.

In March, Jones was named as one of several defendants in a lawsuit filed by a Virginia man who claimed he was defamed by false stories in which he was accused of helping stage unrest last summer in Charlottesville, Virginia, as part of an effort to undermine U.S. President Donald Trump.

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
2  Rmando    6 years ago

Unless Jones specifically mentioned the people suing by name and personally slandered them this case won't go anywhere. We still have freedom of speech, even for creeps like Jones.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
2.1  epistte  replied to  Rmando @2    6 years ago
Unless Jones specifically mentioned the people suing by name and personally slandered them this case won't go anywhere. We still have freedom of speech, even for creeps like Jones.

Freedom of speech does not protect you from the liability of accusing or harming others with your speech. He is not being sued by the state, so his freedom of speech is not involved.

Defimation;

n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
2.1.1  Rmando  replied to  epistte @2.1    6 years ago

Freedom of speech applies even if being sued by a private citizen. Just ask Judas Priest or Ozzy Osbourne. They got hauled into court over their song lyrics. So unless Jones specifically called out private individuals and made slanderous comments about them there is no case.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
2.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Rmando @2.1.1    6 years ago

Song lyrics cases have to do with copyright infringement, not freedom of speech. My sister in law is an intellectual properties lawyer for sony/bmg/rca. They sue people all the time for what is essentially theft. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Rmando @2.1.1    6 years ago
Freedom of speech applies even if being sued by a private citizen.

Freedom of speech does not allow slander or libel. Alex Jones slandered those families when he claimed they were apparently in on some hoax or intentionally allowed their children to be gunned down for political purposes. The claims are outrageous but unless he intends to claim it was a joke and thus invoke a parody defense these parents have a decent civil case against him. I don't think it would be that hard for them to credibly argue pain and suffering from his hurtful false allegations, but proving some monetary damages would likely be difficult.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
2.1.4  epistte  replied to  Rmando @2.1.1    6 years ago
Freedom of speech applies even if being sued by a private citizen. Just ask Judas Priest or Ozzy Osbourne. They got hauled into court over their song lyrics. So unless Jones specifically called out private individuals and made slanderous comments about them there is no case.

These are civil suits and not criminal.

Judas Priest and Ozzy were sued by parents of teens who killed them while listening to their music and claimed that there was a subliminal message that was not protected free speech. I never liked Ozzy but there were a few Priest songs that I liked. Glenn Tipton in black leather pants was attractive eye candy.

The legal protection of lyrics as free speech had already been tested (perhaps most notably during a roughly concurrent trial accusing Ozzy Osbourne of driving a fan to suicide with his song "Suicide Solution"), but the Priest case proceeded thanks to a legal twist: Without commenting on whether or not the songs in question actually included subliminal messages, the presiding judge ruled that so-called "subliminals" don't constitute actual speech -- and are therefore not protected by the First Amendment.

"I don't know what subliminals are, but I do know there's nothing like that in this music," band manager Bill Curbishley complained before the trial. "If we were going to do that, I'd be saying, 'Buy seven copies,' not telling a couple of screwed-up kids to kill themselves."

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
2.1.5  Rmando  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.3    6 years ago

If Jones is liable for offensive conspiracy theories then that also means all 9/11 truthers are as well. I'm sure there are lots of family members who lost loved ones that are equally offended by talk of inside jobs and stories of certain groups being told to stay home that day.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Rmando @2.1.5    6 years ago
If Jones is liable for offensive conspiracy theories then that also means all 9/11 truthers are as well.

"Heslin's lawsuit notes the case "arises out of accusation by InfoWars in the summer of 2017 that Plaintiff was lying about whether he actually held his son's body and observed a bullet hole in his head. This heartless and vile act of defamation re-ignited the Sandy Hook 'false flag' conspiracy and tore open the emotional wounds that Plaintiff has tried so desperately to heal." 

I think there's quite a bit of daylight between some nut jobs saying they think the government was behind 9/11 and a specific shock jock claiming one of the parents of a Sandy Hook victim is a liar who lied about seeing his dead son and the bullet in his sons body. Not sure why you're trying to defend the kind of worthless idiot who would claim a grieving parent is a liar.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
2.1.7  epistte  replied to  Rmando @2.1.5    6 years ago
If Jones is liable for offensive conspiracy theories then that also means all 9/11 truthers are as well. I'm sure there are lots of family members who lost loved ones that are equally offended by talk of inside jobs and stories of certain groups being told to stay home that day.

Truthers are not saying that 9/11 didn't happen.  Truthers are questioning the story of who is to blame for the attacks. 

Alex Jones is saying that the massacre at Sandy Hook didn't happen and that the victims are still alive somewhere.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3  Bob Nelson    6 years ago

I hope they take every penny he has!

 
 
 
luther28
Sophomore Silent
3.1  luther28  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    6 years ago

Leave him a quarter for the Court House parking meter.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  luther28 @3.1    6 years ago

No.

I want his car to be towed.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  Kavika     6 years ago

Lock him up.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
6  lady in black    6 years ago

Take this delusional piece of shit for all he's worth.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
7  Skrekk    6 years ago

One of the plaintiffs is Leonard Pozner who helped get James Tracy fired from his tenured professorship at Florida Atlantic University.   Along with other good conduct violations, Tracy refused to comply with the university's orders to stop using their equipment and university title when he was attacking the parents of a dead kid.   He also refused to file mandatory disclosure forms that require all professors to reveal outside work and activities that could affect their work or the university.

Tracy is one of the right-wing "sandy hook truther" morons whom Alex Jones featured on his show.    These are seriously dimwitted people as are the nuts who listen to Jones.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
8  bbl-1    6 years ago

Unless I'm mistaken, is not DJT also a believer and admirer of Jones?

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1  Skrekk  replied to  bbl-1 @8    6 years ago

Jones, Hannity and Breitbart are where all dumbfuks get their "facts".

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
8.4  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  bbl-1 @8    6 years ago
Unless I'm mistaken, is not DJT also a believer and admirer of Jones?

You are not mistaken.  Trump's idiotic remarks start at the 13:35 mark.

 
 
 
DocPhil
Sophomore Quiet
9  DocPhil    6 years ago

What makes Alex Jones so despicable is the fact that even he doesn't believe his own conspiracy theories. When sued in an earlier case, he stated that he was nothing more than an entertainer and as an entertainer could make up outrageous comments for his audience's entertainment. He is a media whore who has no consideration for who he hurts. To go after the parents of Sandy Hook and the very thought that the tragedy they endured was anything but real is the sign that the man has not one shred of human decency. I would hope that justice is done and the man is left with nothing but the clothes on his back and a sign that he can make that says " the whole world has conspired against me---I am the only one who knows the truth----Give me your money"

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
10  Tacos!    6 years ago

Jones is a nut, but suing him seems pointless. He actually believes the things he says and he has reasons - however thin - for saying them. At worst, you might be able to prove he's mistaken about something, but not that he's lying.

And then what are the damages? That he hurt somebody's feelings?

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
11  PJ    6 years ago

I hope these parents win.  It warms my heart to think this could be precedence setting for more to come against slime balls like this guy.  It's simply deplorable ........devil

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
12  bbl-1    6 years ago

I don't know.  But for me, personally, I do not believe that 'lie speech' is free speech.  One can lie all they want.  But if there is personal or public consequence for that lie.....then the consequence belongs to the holder of that deliberate untruth.

Just my opinion.

As far as Jones?  Paranoid Putz?

 
 

Who is online

Drinker of the Wry


456 visitors