1ºApparently there's no such thing as freedom of speech in this country anymore. Say something the mindless, communist masses don't like? Pay for it dearly. This is exactly why the founding fathers wrote the First Amendment. Hopefully the appellate court, or at least the Supreme Court of the United States, will be smarter and care more about the rights of American citizens than the lower court and all of the morons on CNN comments sections. If the court had done this to any of you, or to anyone you care about, you would be outraged, but if it's someone you don't like, then it's okay if they don't get due process of law and their constitutional rights get stomped into dust. You people have absolutely no honor, and that's the worst thing I can say about any human being, because that word actually means something to people like me. ️
2ºBrian Hanes I’m getting shown nothing but the absolute hypocrisy in the legal system… remember this started as a case of “he said my kid didn’t die” after he apologized and filed suits against media outlets by simply using him as the sandy hook and not the shooter Lanza to now “he sent his followers to harass my family” and there fuckall evidence of him saying that. Had he said that it definitely would’ve been used in the 25 minutes of audio and video… and not one of you can time stamp when he told his followers to harass the families.
3ºChris Page this just shows how little you understand the judicial process. This was a civil case and the verdict was decided prior to what you saw on TV because the judge (and the one in Texas) had rendered directive verdicts because Alex Jones repeatedly failed to turn over evidence. There was not a prosecutor in this case. This was a civil trial. Prosecutors work for the state, this was a plaintiff attorney. Guess what? Because it is a civil trial, the attorneys have more leeway for presenting bias. Especially in the damages phase which is all you saw on television.
4ºWah, wah, wah. Crybaby. He was a bully then and is a bully now. And when he doesn’t get his way, he wants a do-over. I’ll bet all those parents who lost their kids want a do-over too. Alex Jones made a calculated decision to denounce the facts that the shooting took place and severely impacted the lives of the survivors of that horrific carnage. Actions have consequences and Mr. Jones is about to discover that absolute rule of nature. He can’t change the narrative. There is a price to pay for his actions and the bill collector is knocking at his door. Wah, wah, wah. He should be glad it’s not the grim reaper.
5ºMarielle Louise Songy yes that is how it works! People don’t get the verdict they want so they go find a different judge that’s more sympathetic to them. This guy will keep dragging these families through hell until he finds that judge and gets a verdict he wants or one that cuts the amount of money down to nothing! He doesn’t care about these families and what he’s putting them through. He will continue this until he gets what he want or these families have had enough and end it. He still is spewing his lies about all this on his radio show.
6ºChris Page, as I said above, you don't know what the definition of Defamation/slander are and what is needed to prove it. The difference between Jones and "legacy media outlets" is when they make a false statement they retract it and they don't make statements that they know are lies. Jones knew he was lying but kept repeating his slanderous claims. The Statement - A "statement" needs to be spoken (slander), written (libel), or otherwise expressed in some manner. Many consider slander less harmful than libel because the spoken word often fades more quickly from memory. These statements are especially damaging (the legal term for which is defamation per se) if they involve a public or private individual and sexual misconduct or the abuse of minors.
Publication - For a statement to be published, a third party (someone other than the person making the statement or the subject of the statement) must have seen, heard, or read the defamatory statement. Unlike the traditional meaning of the word "published," a defamatory statement does not need to be printed. Rather, a statement heard over the television or seen scrawled on someone's door is considered to be published.
Injury - To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff must show the statement to have caused injury to the subject of the statement. This means that the statement must have hurt the reputation of the subject of the statement. For example, a statement has caused injury if the subject of the statement lost work due to the statement.
Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation in many states. In some states, truth is a defense (see below).
Unprivileged - You cannot sue for defamation based on statements considered "privileged." For example, when a witness testifies at trial and makes a false and injurious statement, the witness will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because the act of testifying at trial is privileged. In some states, privilege is a defense to a defamation claim (more on that below).