This is such a stupid statement. The right is no freaking different, except they have different objectives on what they want to tackle. Both groups have an agenda, there is no freaking doubt about that. This case is in the courthouse because this individual made a lot of money by telling lies. If the guy has 8k views on YouTube, while the families are unharmed and not bothered, then who cares, there is no case there, however, this individual has millions of followers and they went after these families. So no, free speech is not something that you are allowed to use as a defense if it is causing actual harm to individuals.
FIRE on unprotected speech: Unprotected Speech - FIRE (thefire.org) Defamation In Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966), Justice Potter Stewart wrote that the tort of defamation “reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being—a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.” Defamation is defined as a false communication that harms an individual’s reputation, causes the general public to despise or disrespect them, or damages their business or employment. To be defamatory, a statement must be an assertion of fact (rather than mere opinion) and capable of being proven false. In addition to being false, the statement, to be defamatory, must identify its victim by naming or reasonably implicating the person allegedly defamed.
Some of us have known he was an ******* and we're tired of his schtick when he was still just a babbling lunatic on Austin cable access TV.
Of course they did.... because it costs nothing to ask for it, and it likely makes fat boy happy because he thinks his lawyers are doing something. "Your honor, I did not do my job by providing protected information to the prosecution. Then when the prosecution pointed it out to me, I decided it was too much work to write a letter claiming it is protected. You see Night Court was on television and I figured priorities. Now that the prosecution has done a good job and exposed my client as a lying scumbag; I want to get his fat ass off of my back so I am asking for a mistrial because lets be honest, my client looked terrible." - Crap Attorney #1 How did they go overboard? The prosecutor sucked at his presentation, he was over playing it and did not seem sincere.... but the actual evidence and what he said? It is fair game, at least in Illinois. The Judge needs to stop interjecting herself into the case, the prosecutor can object or move to strike what Jones says... he doesn't need any help from the court.
The ACLU is who fought for and won the rights for the Tiki idiots in Charlottesville to protest..... They recently fought for and won right wingers the right to have Confederate flags on their plates.... They also recently fought for and won a suit against Cuomo and NY that tried to keep the NRA from having financial documents in NY... The ACLU also was against Facebook and Twitter banning Trump..... The ACLU is in the midst of an internal squabble...... but that is nothing new. It has had fierce divergence since it was founded. There were debates and an almost 50/50 split going back 100 years about whether it should represent the Klan for example. There was no unified agreement.
Can Jones ask for a mistrial due to incompetent attorneys? Could this have been a hail mary after they saw they were getting beat....a tactic of some type?
It varies from state to state, but you can argue ineffective counsel but that is extremely hard to win. He hired these lawyers. My guess is he got them the same place he found the gay frogs in out water supply or where he found crisis actors. He has largely gotten away with willful lies and fraud for years, and he has received fame and money as a consequence. He is going down, there are limitations to free speech (always has been) and he is going to see his bill come due. What is more upsetting is how many idiots like and Believe Uncle Alex Jones.... they are currently trying to de-platform my guy Al Profit because he called Jones a scumbag on Youtube.
Agreed........ and 90% of trial attorneys are like this cornball idiot.... they are pseudo intellectuals that were cut from their high school drama clubs and now think they all are Perry Mason crossed with that "BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE" Sportscaster.
or that police officer who ruined a perfectly fine angry woman at mcdonald's video by narrating it in a dad joke fashion
I thought his response today on the motion to delete the docs and for a mistrial was pretty effective.
Those who listen to Jones’ claims touting products that don’t do what they claim. The victims of Sandy Hook are the victims of fraud as they are dealing with the consequences of Jones pushing falsehoods that are affecting them financially and their safety.
This isn’t a matter of protecting unpopular speech and this isn’t a case of political speech. This is a matter of profiting off of deception and defamation. Jones himself has already admitted that he’s doesn’t believe what the stories he’s been peddling. He’s even acknowledged that harm has been done. So yes under free speech you can hold the belief that Sandy Hook was false and the parents aren’t being truthful. The problem is that if you’re using that belief to for profit purpose while those knowing that those beliefs are false. Jones isn’t being charged with a crime. This is a civil penalty.
I don't actively practice law because - meh, awful, but from what I recall ineffective assistance of counsel actually IS a thing, but, you know, it's rarely a lawyer filing for an "ineffective counsel" thing that is against...themself? Also I think it's basically a criminal case-only thing, but don't know.
