i don't think he's honest either. though he did "turn opinion around" on sandy hook already actually...if you don't listen to just what was put forth in this case, he was all over the place on it. he had mutually-exclusive stated conspiracies regarding it, it seems. that's obviously not good for his credibility, but it's also inconvenient to a defamation case if it were to be decided on the merits, because it makes it harder to demonstrate damages. though plaintiff also didn't do what is normally required for defamation to even be claimed.I'm not a Jones fan, and I think he's a f*ing liar. I don't think he would have turned his opinion around on the "reality" of Sandy Hook had he not come under fiduciary fire years back.
a judge directing the jury to disregard something the state's law explicitly defines as a mitigating factor is extraordinary. though perhaps not as much as the summary judgment was in the context of this case. these are both non-trivial misconduct by the judge, and it will torpedo the credibility of everything that happened here. all for what?I guess it's because some court procedure hasn't been followed (we all have the right to that), but suspension of ability to claim specific things, and disallowance of certain things as proof, is quite normal in court.
this whole thing is riddled with odd choices by the court. i am not comfortable with the precedent this crap sets, at all.Plus a couple of bullets that really depend on legal technicalities but do seem strange.
always looks worse when you don't agree with it.Still can't believe that after having had their young children murdered that their parents have then had to put up with harrisment from far right conspiracy nuts, what a country we live in.
i would be interested to hear why you feel this particular case merits "looser interpretations", and how such a standard applied in this context wouldn't/couldn't be expanded to apply to others.However, as precedent, as we discovered it was like 6 people initiating most of the vaccine conspiracies, I don't really mind they are held liable to looser interpretations of damaging speech.
Isn't this what effectively happened in the Nick Sandmann case?the way this case was handled, a court could similarly tag cnn or fox or whatever with misrepresenting a tragedy, claim ieed, and demand analytics in addition to depositions. i suspect that like jones, these places are unlikely to be able to produce literally all analytics requested.
lol, no. the legal handling between these cases are night and day different. to the extent that you asking this is comical.Isn't this what effectively happened in the Nick Sandmann case?
Do you think CNN and Wapo having to give him lots of money for accidently misrepresenting what happened at the protest set a dangerous president?
is the first amendment just a piece of paper to you? is due process just a phrase to you? what do you mean "so what"?Regarding the letter of the law and precedents being potentially misused by Trump or an imitator in the future: So what?
Putting aside your unnecessarily snide remarks to my original question, if the Sandmann case had gone to trial who do you feel should have won, him or CNN/WAPO?lol, no. the legal handling between these cases are night and day different. to the extent that you asking this is comical.
it is not. it is one of the worst disgraces of us "justice" in recent memory. that's more because of how the court proceedings were handled than any defense of jones per se'.
there were numerous serious problems with this case/trial, rarely seen in any normal us court proceeding:
it should not matter if you like jones or think he's a complete cretin. this court is kangaroo to the levels i would normally expect only out of bad family courts. this process of "justice" is a threat to literally every american. saying things the government disagrees with is not defamation. conspiracy theories are not "defamation".
- texas defamation law requires timely notice for retraction of defamation claims/chance to retract. that didn't happen in this case.
- jones never had a proper trial where he could defend himself on the merits. he was given a "summary judgment", despite many hours of deposition and information turned over, because he could not produce social media analytics. he claimed he did not have them. summary judgment against defendant in this context is both extraordinary and alarming. there are only a few cases in us history that used this despite defendant producing information, and they are nothing like this.
- defamation requires the person(s) defamed be specific or inferred specific. iirc, this has historically meant <25 people. there were more sandy hook victims than that
- this case ignores the majority of jones' speech on sandy hook, which acknowledged the shooting and was instead doing a conspiracy theory about the government not trying hard to stop these events so it can use them as fuel to ban guns. that's not a particularly ethical position to take either, but it conflicts with the accusations in the case and was blocked from ever being heard in court on the merits, again.
- thus, defamation would almost certainly fail on the merits. the more interesting claim is intentional infliction of emotional distress:
- jones was told what he could and could not say on the stand, even before this jury which was already handed the conclusion he was guilty.
- that includes ridiculous things, such as talking about the fact that he apologized. judge in this case informed jury to ignore that he apologized as a mitigating factor, in defiance of texas law which explicitly says it is a mitigating factor
- the numbers for damages in this trial are looney toons
- same as defamation above, jones was denied due process for this case to be heard on the merits.
- making this situation even worse:
- appellate court is similarly corrupt and will likely deny and try to block a stay on paying the money while this goes to appeal.
- jones' lawyers sending his cell phone information, and its use by prosecution, were both unethical actions that could (in more sane courts) result in mistrial. there's a high chance jones can pin malpractice on his lawyers and make them eat the court-awarded looney toons damages instead.
??? that's not even alleged here. fwiw, he advocated against the riots on jan. 6, claiming it was a setup, even as it was happening. us government practices since them lent him more credibility than he should have had in saying that.
either way, there is significant misinformation about what jones supposedly did here and how the trial has actually happened/progressed. he was found guilty before even having a trial. this was to decide the money he had to pay out, and even in this context he was restricted in what he could say.
i would imagine that if jones were really guilty of the things accused, it would not require trampling multiple rights explicitly granted in the bill of rights in order to pin crazy damages on him. by the standards given in this case, we'd have expected the sandman case to outright sink multiple major media outlets...
i think sandmann had a strong case on the merits. but we'll never know.Putting aside your unnecessarily snide remarks to my original question, if the Sandmann case gone to trial who do you feel should have won, him or CNN/WAPO?
@TheMeInTeam Do you have actual legal sources for your claims or you just spitballing?
Sec. 73.003. MITIGATING FACTORS. (a) To determine the extent and source of actual damages and to mitigate exemplary damages, the defendant in a libel action may give evidence of the following matters if they have been specially pleaded:
(1) all material facts and circumstances surrounding the claim for damages and defenses to the claim;
(2) all facts and circumstances under which the libelous publication was made; and
(3) any public apology, correction, or retraction of the libelous matter made and published by the defendant.
(b) To mitigate exemplary damages, the defendant in a libel action may give evidence of the intention with which the libelous publication was made if the matter has been specially pleaded.
is there a reason that question is relevant to my points, or this thread in general? i am not sure i am even willing to respect the notion that the merits of such a case shouldn't be considered.Do you have any examples of anyone of similar political persuasion losing a defamation case on the merits?
Thank you for the clear and polite answer to the question, I appreciate it.i think sandmann had a strong case on the merits. but we'll never know
most recent one, because it's a clown show legal process that is awful precedent for much more normal americans going forward.Thank you for the clear and polite answer to the question, I appreciate it.
Just for clarity, is your beef only with the most recent libel case related to Sandyhook which he has lost (so a due process issue) or with all the cases he has lost regarding it (so an infringement on free speech issue), or both?
is there a reason that question is relevant to my points, or this thread in general?
i am not sure i am even willing to respect the notion that the merits of such a case shouldn't be considered.
The start of my answer might be in the part of my post you did not quote, where I indicated I believe all protections are negligible when institutions are captured.is the first amendment just a piece of paper to you? is due process just a phrase to you? what do you mean "so what"?
when you're okay with government disregarding the bill of rights, what makes you think any of those rights still apply to you? if i as a government employee threw you in jail tomorrow, what recourse would you claim that would uniquely defend your rights in a way this sham trial does not protect those of jones? so your rights were violated. so what? what are you doing to do about it in this hypothetical, arbitrary criminal?
I bet they can. For the scientific data web site I used to be in charge of I could quote analytics down to indavidual users routes through the site. As these buisinesses are much more involved in metrics like "conversion ratio" and such I would expect them to be able to provide analytics to any detail requested.i suspect that like jones, [cnn or fox] are unlikely to be able to produce literally all analytics requested
with jones being as prolific a salesman as he is in reality, i would be very surprised if he really didn't do analytics. infowars is a huge business. he's been known to be reluctant to share numbers of how big the business is historically, as to why he does this one can speculate; we may not ever know for sure if he does analytics, but we have found after some digging that he's repeatedly lied about the size of the company and the amount of money it earns. people's qualified guesses is that you can't really be Rage Against The Machine Last Standing Man We're Almost Shut Down when the reality is that he earns millions upon millions of dollars weekly.I bet they can. For the scientific data web site I used to be in charge of I could quote analytics down to indavidual users routes through the site. As these buisinesses are much more involved in metrics like "conversion ratio" and such I would expect them to be able to provide analytics to any detail requested.
they did participate in discover extensively though. the "lack of participation" was this stuff, to my knowledge?What is this about not producing analytics? Most of the old articles talk about the summary judgment being about just the lack of participation in Discovery overall. And what is this about an apology? Are we referring to the apology from after the lawsuit started?
it's an individual named in proceedings and this thread.The start of my answer might be in the part of my post you did not quote, where I indicated I believe all protections are negligible when institutions are captured.
"not responsive to discovery request" is a convenient way to handwave away the information that was provided. also not sure what legal eagle is talking about wrt not sitting for depositions, jones did that numerous times for long total hrs.As for the default judgement (which is what established liability, so was extremely crucial), there is this video by LegalEagle, who summarizes how that happened - and yes, it can be also seen as problematic:
openly pursuing ad hominem? not respecting this, if you have something relevant to the discussion try again with that.It would establish your credibility on the subject.
easy to say that, not so easy to show what actually occurred constitutes that.Cant believe years of engaging in borderline contempt of court finally had consequences lol
the defense lawyers are jones' lawyers. normally prosecution/plaintiffs can't use that information. the way the conversation between plaintiff and defense lawyers was handled was unusual, and plaintiff lawyer used a loophole attempt to bypass that restriction. judge is friendly to plaintiff obvious, so this didn't result in mistrial. might get defense lawyers sued successfully, though.In such a case, isn't the defense required to reveal to the judge that this happened (who in turn has to notify Jones' lawyers)? Did they actually first reveal this as the trial was ongoing and they were examining Jones on the stand, then showed he lied by (only then) mentioning they acquired his files in such a way?