Alex Jones being sued by parents of Sandy Hook Victims

[Joods]

The cases aren't parallel.  I can accuse you directly of anything I like, and you can tell me to fuck off.  If I levy a false accusation against you to some other party, it becomes defamation, which is illegal.

Boru

I don't really see the difference,  since this is a public forum, there is an audience even if it's not the same as Alex Jones., Think of the floodgates that would open if the family won. Everyone could be sued for conspiracy videos or even certain shit talking online.

They won't win though. So it doesn't really matter.

---

Also Alex Jones didn't make up this conspiracy.  Someone else did and he's just promotes it. I mean why Jones? Is every YouTuber who promotes this, or 9/11 truther nonsense subject to lawsuit?

Yeah, if he didn't originally make this stuff up, then the families are technically going after the wrong party. They need to go after whomever started the conspiracy to begin with. This amounts to nothing more than shooting the messenger, which, in this case, as much as I loathe Jones, is a violation of his First Amendment rights. 

That guy shouldn't be allowed a platform for the shit that he does, but if we take away his right to do that, then we might as well take away everyone's rights and abolish the First amendment all together. That amendment is there to ensure that everyone has a right to say what they want to say, within reason. If it offends some people - then those people will have to stay offended. Chances are, at some point in their lives, they too, have said something to offend someone else. No one is perfect. 

Again - if Jones wasn't the originator, but just the catalyst, then there are no merits of this case that the family can win because they really have no ground to stand on. They need to place their suit with whom ever started this.

[CapnAwesome]

There is a difference between internet shit talk and accusing people of a crime on a nationally syndicated program .As for why Jones he's a recognized public figure some random person on the internet is not . And your paranoia is unfounded . Oh and they have a strong case so they very well could win .

Yeah, but some of the Sandy Hook videos have millions of views. And it's not a strong case at all. In fact exactly the reverse. There is a lot of precident for free speech laws in the U.S. and I can you cite a single case where someone was successfully sued for promoting a conspiracy theory that lots of other people also promote.

If the family proved damages (which they could), they'd have to prove the people were motivated by Jones, rather than one of the hundreds of other people who promote the sandy hook conspiracy (which they couldn't.)

I wouldn't be surprised if they won in a lower court, but they would never win in the supreme court. You guys seem to be caught up on the idea that he's accusing them of a crime, but that really doesn't matter at all. Elsewise think of all the people who could sue different conspiracy theorists. Every conspiracy theory accuses people of a crime.

[LastPoet]

I don't really see the difference,  since this is a public forum, there is an audience even if it's not the same as Alex Jones., Think of the floodgates that would open if the family won. Everyone could be sued for conspiracy videos or even certain shit talking online.

They won't win though. So it doesn't really matter.

---

Also Alex Jones didn't make up this conspiracy.  Someone else did and he's just promotes it. I mean why Jones? Is every YouTuber who promotes this, or 9/11 truther nonsense subject to lawsuit?

Yeah, if he didn't originally make this stuff up, then the families are technically going after the wrong party. They need to go after whomever started the conspiracy to begin with. This amounts to nothing more than shooting the messenger, which, in this case, as much as I loathe Jones, is a violation of his First Amendment rights. 

That guy shouldn't be allowed a platform for the shit that he does, but if we take away his right to do that, then we might as well take away everyone's rights and abolish the First amendment all together. That amendment is there to ensure that everyone has a right to say what they want to say, within reason. If it offends some people - then those people will have to stay offended. Chances are, at some point in their lives, they too, have said something to offend someone else. No one is perfect. 

Again - if Jones wasn't the originator, but just the catalyst, then there are no merits of this case that the family can win because they really have no ground to stand on. They need to place their suit with whom ever started this.

Well, the guy that said we were a a gang was really pushing against that incident. Jeez. In Portugal we don't make amendments to the constitution. We revise it, keeping the previous versions for keeps sake. Gonna have 75% of parliament to change anything, and in a 5 party dynamic (2 bigger, 3 smaller, but force compromise), that will be very hard to do lest dire need.

IMO, and here, slander is a thing. If you accuse someone publicly of a crime, you are burdened to present your evidence or lawyers will eat your ass. Accusing anyone of a crime without any proof is a crime here, it is not about free speech. You can say someone is an asswhole (not a crime here), but a sexual offender(crime), without proof of your allegations is slander, libel, etc. It is the right of the accused to be presented with the evidence, by Law. Publicly accusing others of a crime, without any evidence usually is a nice lawsuit here to pay.

[Angrboda]

What Does the Victim Need to Prove to Establish Defamation?

The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:

• published
  
• false
  
• injurious
  
• unprivileged
  

Let's look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail.

1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.
   
2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through social media, television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.
   
3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.
   
4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.
   
5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themselves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.
   

Defamation Law Made Simple

The trickiest part for a private citizen to prove is that injury resulted as a result of the defamation. Generally, defamation to reputation is defined in monetary terms, though not always. Even if Alex Jones spouted off about these families, I doubt they will be able to show that his comments led to identifiable damage to their reputation, either in terms of being shunned or abused by the media, or the like. I understand the desire to sue, but I doubt that they will win.

[Minimalist]

Depends on exactly what he's being sued for.  Without knowing,  I can almost guarantee that his defense will be his 1st amendment rights.

Once again, that prevents the government from throwing his sorry ass in jail.  It does not shield him from civil lawsuits.

[Pat Mustard]

I don't know. I hate Alex Jones so so so much. More than you can imagine. I hate his voice, his stupid face and everything that comes tumbling from his brain to the garbage hole of his mouth.

..... but you can't sue someone for being an idiot, and saying the stupid things they believe. I feel for these parents.  But if Fred Phelps won his supreme court case, 7-0 then Alex is protected by the first amendment.

But it's more than him being stupid. This is a clear case of a deliberate and continuous campaign of lies designed to defame and slander the good name of law abiding citizens. Even in the US free speech doesn't protect such speech.

[Shell B]

Even if he just has to pay out of his ass for lawyers, that's good enough.

[johan]

Depends on exactly what he's being sued for.  Without knowing,  I can almost guarantee that his defense will be his 1st amendment rights.

If that's going to be his defense, he'd better find a better lawyer fast. 1st amendment doesn't protect you from civil suits.

[Joods]

Depends on exactly what he's being sued for.  Without knowing,  I can almost guarantee that his defense will be his 1st amendment rights.

If that's going to be his defense, he'd better find a better lawyer fast. 1st amendment doesn't protect you from civil suits.

It does if what the plaintiff suing for, can't be proven. See Jor's post on this.

[Amarok]

Yeah, but some of the Sandy Hook videos have millions of views. 

Irrelevant 

And it's not a strong case at all. In fact exactly the reverse.

Nope exactly the reverse it's strong 

 There is a lot of precident for free speech laws in the U.S. and I can you cite a single case where someone was successfully sued for promoting a conspiracy theory that lots of other people also promote.

Just because it has not been done before does not mean it will not this time . And considering this is not the only case of this type going on right now i think i shift is coming .

If the family proved damages (which they could), they'd have to prove the people were motivated by Jones, rather than one of the hundreds of other people who promote the sandy hook conspiracy (which they couldn't)

Nope all they need to prove is jones slandered them . Other persons are not being sued .

I wouldn't be surprised if they won in a lower court, but they would never win in the supreme court.

I think it could 

 You guys seem to be caught up on the idea that he's accusing them of a crime, but that really doesn't matter at all. Elsewise think of all the people who could sue different conspiracy theorists. Every conspiracy theory accuses people of a crime.

He did and it does . And by the way their are quite a few cases like this going on right now .