To be clear I haven't seen a single comment that could be charitably characterized as "supporting Alex Jones". I see a lot of comments that are pointing out that the judgment against him seems unreasonable given the damage he did to these families.
"View it for what it is: a deliberate attack on free speech. This is essentially legislating from the bench. They can't ban him from speaking but they can make it very VERY expensive to do so, and warn anyone else at the same time."
The people pointing out that the judgment is 'unreasonable' are either intentionally lying or extremely ignorant.
The context is that the judge awarded a default judgment because Alex Jones literally refused to participate in the legal system. He committed overt perjury (and was outright caught on this) and proceeded to just stop complying entirely.
If any of us received a court summons and refused to show up or defend ourselves the court isn't going to shrug and say the case goes away. In a system of law you can't just ignore the law and expect the judge to take pity on you.
Torts are not just about damage, they're also about deterrence. Jones repeatedly demonstrated in the court battle that no deterrence would work on him.
His entire business is built on this kind of defamation -- how much proceeds of this kind of business should he be allowed to keep?
Free speech means protecting speech of people you disagree with.
So what if he claims Sandy Hook was an FBI psy-op. Don't agree with him? Then just walk the other way. The amount of vitoral against the theory just goes to prove that perhaps the FBI and ATF knew a lot more than they like to admit.
>The amount of vitoral against the theory just goes to prove that perhaps the FBI and ATF knew a lot more than they like to admit.
The vitriol is because the spread of the "theory" led directly to the harassment of Sandy Hook victims by people who believed they were "crisis actors."
Most people possessed of common decency and a moral core would find that objectionable.
Intentionally lying to sell ads at the expense of innocent people being targeted and harassed over years is probably not covered by free speech rights in the US.
And if you want to turn this into an argument about the necessary evils of a society practicing free speech, I'll just say that even if it were "covered", I'm not interested in that "right" existing in that form. Though I'm pretty sure willful lies that result in actual, predictable harm is not protected speech.
Don't even know what your last sentences are about. Are you suggesting a conspiracy of some sort?
