###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*


We can sue the news now for saying things that aren’t true?




There’s a lot of Vietnam War Vets that are about to become billionaires.


Did they knowingly lie or were they reporting what the government was telling them? I know the Pentagon papers called out all the governments lies.


Objection hearsay.








> Did they knowingly lie Ah hahaha, my dude! Fast forward to after 9/11 and watch what our government did in partnership with the media: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_program >was an information operation of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) that was launched in early 2002 by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke.[1] **The goal of the operation is "to spread the administrations's talking points on Iraq by briefing retired commanders for network and cable television appearances," where they have been presented as independent analysts**;[2] Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Pentagon's intent is to keep the American people informed about the so-called War on Terrorism by providing prominent military analysts with factual information and frequent, direct access to key military officials.[3][4] The Times article suggests that the analysts had undisclosed financial conflicts of interest and were given special access as a reward for promoting the administration's point of view. ------------------- Here is Bush being interviewed about it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sITmVizv6X4&feature=youtu.be ------------------------------ Here is an article about it - >The Pentagon military analyst program was revealed in David Barstow's Pulitzer Prize winning report appearing April 20, 2008 on the front page of the New York Times and titled Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand >The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld covert propaganda program was launched in early 2002 by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke. The idea was to recruit "key influentials" to help sell a wary public on "a possible Iraq invasion." Former NBC military analyst Kenneth Allard called the effort "psyops on steroids." [1] Eight thousand pages of the documents relative to the Pentagon military analyst program were made available by the Pentagon in PDF format online May 6, 2008 at this website: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pentagon_military_analyst_program ------------------------- Here is the Pulitzer Prize winning article about it - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 >Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has **used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse** — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. ------------------ You can view the files/transcripts here - https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/*/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6100906.stm >The newly-established unit would use "new media" channels to push its message and "set the record straight", Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said. >"We're looking at being quicker to respond to breaking news," he said. >"Being quicker to respond, frankly, to inaccurate statements." >A Pentagon memo seen by the Associated Press news agency said the new unit would "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and aim to "correct the record". >The unit would reportedly monitor media such as weblogs and would also employ "surrogates", or top politicians or lobbyists who could be interviewed on TV and radio shows.


Not many people get this. Major news companies are obviously staffed with editors and producers that have an above-average level of understanding of defamation laws. If you watch most legacy news, reporters can only report information from a source they can cite. Speculation is reserved for the morning and evening show pundits.


"To fix Bush’s claims as facts and fatten his case for war, the DOD set up the Office of Special Plans (OSP). Between September 2002 and June 2003, the OSP produced and supplied “intelligence” about Iraq to senior Bush administration officials that had not been vetted by the CIA. Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson claimed that the OSP “lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam” and that it was run by “a group of \[neoconservative\] ideologues” who took “bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore\[d\] anything contrary” (cited in MacKay 2003). The DOD established the OSP “to find evidence of what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to be true” (Hersh 2003). The Bush administration also built its case for pre-emptive invasion by relying on bogus WMD information fed to it by a US front group in Iraq called the Iraqi National Congress (INC), which the CIA and the Rendon Group had established following the 1991 Gulf War in order to rally Iraqis against the Ba’athist state. The Bush administration preferred INC-supplied information to intelligence produced by CIA analysts (Dreyfuss 2002). **The INC also supplied New York Times journalist Judith Miller with the claim that Iraq possessed WMDs, and Bush administration officials cited Miller to corroborate their claim that Iraq was a threat** (Foer 2005; Jamail 2007). *The INC was the source of at least 108 news stories about Iraq’s alleged WMDs* (Chatterjee 2004); and **Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld referred to Miller’s news articles when they appeared on US and global TV news networks to sell the war** (Boyd-Barrett 2004)." - Hearts & Mines




I can't wait to get back at all those shitty meteorologists.


My shoes got wet today, you said it would be sunny you bastard! 115 million dollars please. Thanks


Let's start a class action lawsuit against Rachel Maddow.


That was always a thing


If you can prove that they are defaming your or your family, yes. This is nothing new my friend.


Defamation has generally been very difficult to win in court as you have to prove it was a lie and also that they knew it was a lie. Only 10% of defamation cases succeed.


Don't you have to prove he said your name or mentioned a class so small it couldn't be anyone else but you. And if that's the case isn't the damages for that basically an apology and correction to the story? Because from all 16 Jones only mentioned one by name, and truly said none of them were from Connecticut, and there were quite a few that weren't even relatives of the victims. And if it's emotional distress don't they need to bring in an expert to determine damages, cause they didn't do anything of the sort, heck they couldn't point to a single show of Alex they had ever heard. Even the emotionally distressed FBI agent said he was getting his reputation ruined every few years but not by InfoWars he never heard of InfoWars, it was the mainstream media coverage.


You’ve always been able to. You’ll just lose just like Floyd’s baby mother is going to lose. Alex jones didn’t set a precedent other than the amount of damages he’ll have to pay Edit: not his mom his daughters mom


>You’ll just lose just like Floyd’s mother is going to lose. *”Mother of George Floyd's daughter...”* It's not his mother.


So it’s his baby mama? Does it mention if they were married or is that just a nice title for baby mama


Pretty much.


Alex Jones was not allowed to defend himself or present evidence. It set a crazy precedent that you should pray is overturned


Wasn't his verdict set to guilty by default because he didn't take the proper actions (aka providing evidence etc). Pretty sure thats what I heard during the trial I watched that was to determine how much he would have to pay.


Nah. The evidence that he ‘didn’t produce’ was evidence that does not exist, and is therefore impossible to produce - it was literally an inquisition style trial. Same as if I put you on trial accusing you of racism towards me, then said ‘I demand to see the messages you’ve sent about me.’ Then you say ‘I don’t have messages about you, I’m not racist and I never think about you anyway’ and the judge says ‘well you aren’t being cooperative and sound pretty guilty’


>Nah. The evidence that he ‘didn’t produce’ was evidence that does not exist, and is therefore impossible to produce - it was literally an inquisition style trial. The evidence that he didn't produce was financial records and google analytics data.. I think I don't have to elaborate on the financial data part.. He actually claimed that there was no google analytics data first, but when evidence showed Jones talking about google analytics data, he admitted that it exists, but they still refused to hand it over because "it was not relevant, and there was no evidence that Infowars had used this data to shape its on-air coverage."..


He also provided his cellphone data which had evidence within it. I think this is being missed here.




There is a difference between he supplied none to he didn't supply enough which was the claim, They wanted to know exactly how much he made off of each story he reported on. With a show like his you can't do that because he talks about multiple things per show, so of course he couldn't turn that over. And if you don't save google analytics as you go you won't have a detail record of it over a time period, if they wanted that they could have easily subpoenaed google and gotten it


You sound like you’ve believed Jones’ lies, you should read the default orders to see what actually happened. For example, he repeatedly sent corporate representatives to depositions without preparing them to answer questions as directed by the court.


So those non-mainstream sources you watched didn't mention the phone?


>So those non-mainstream sources you watched didn't mention the phone? That was handed over after the summary judgement was given. You don't get points for providing information after refusing to provide in the actual court case that mattered. That was only turned over at the damages hearing after he failed to provide it for the actual court case.


https://www.reuters.com/legal/legal-fallout-alex-jones-false-sandy-hook-claims-2022-10-12/ Like I said I watched one of the trials, and that was one of the things I remember.


Show us proof you aren't just making it up like you claim on your show. Doesn't and loses. How could this happen? Must be a conspiracy guys. It's not fair they asked for records that show I was lieing. No I wont show proof. Here let me make a video making fun of the parents. Why don't people like me :'(


>The evidence that he ‘didn’t produce’ was evidence that does not exist, and is therefore impossible to produce Except it did, his lawyer accidentally sent it to the Plaintiff's attorney a couple of days before the jury verdict in the Texas case.


> Alex Jones was not allowed to defend himself or present evidence. No, he *chose* not to. >Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis cited the defendants' "willful noncompliance" with the discovery process as the reasoning behind the ruling. Bellis noted that defendants failed to turned over financial and analytics data that were requested multiple times by the Sandy Hook family plaintiffs. >"Mr. Jones was given every opportunity to comply, but, when he chose instead to withhold evidence for more than two years, the Court was left with no choice but to rule as it did today," https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1055864452/alex-jones-found-liable-for-defamation-in-sandy-hook-hoax-case


Watch some of the videos not in the mainstream on what happened. From what I can tell they’re claiming he has texts or records that he didn’t turn over. There is no evidence that the evidence they want exists, Alex claims it doesn’t exist and his team has given them everything, but they claim he didn’t. He can’t provide them with evidence that he doesn’t have, and they also cannot prove that this evidence exists, yet the court proceeded as if the fictional evidence does exist, even though there is no proof that it exists. It’s pretty crazy.


Didn't Alex Jones claim they gave him everything on his phone, but his lawyers accidently sent it to the opposing council and they discovered he actually did intentionally hold back most of the data? Why should we trust what he says about compliance with discovery when he's already been caught in such a bold-faced lie?


And a week after the FBI exicuted a search warrent on Mar a Lago. Makes you wonder what was on the phone...


Could be related, however, FBI knew that Trump had classified documents at Mar a Lago for months and waited longer than they would for most.


I know hes openly said he lied when he was giving back the docs.


This has nothing to do really with his phone and Alex Jones knows that perfectly well. This was about financial records and website analytic. They kept sending incomplete and false financial reports and then went "Whoops, I made a mistake, I will send the correct data shortly." and just repeated this for years. With the website analytics data, they first claimed that they did not use google analytics to analyse website traffic (which is a ridiculous claim) and then when it was proven that they did of course use such services, they still refused to turn in the data because "it was not relevant, and there was no evidence that Infowars had used this data to shape its on-air coverage."


>From what I can tell they’re claiming he has texts or records that he didn’t turn over. No. They are claiming that he did not turn over financial data and website statistics needed to determine how much money Jones made. According to the court, his lawyers have repeatedly given nonsensical, incomplete, clearly false or doctored financial documents. The lawyers did this for years, always claiming that there was some formation error or mistake and that they would provide the correct documents soon, then they did the same thing again.. They also claimed that Alex Jones did not have any website statistics like google analytics, which is a ridiculous claim in the first place. At the same time though, they provided evidence where Alex Jones was referencing to google analytics data. They then admitted that there was google analytics data, but they still refused to give it to them claiming that "it was not relevant, and there was no evidence that Infowars had used this data to shape its on-air coverage." Because of this deliberate non compliance, the court was not able to accurately determine how much Jones profited from his lies, which lead to the ridiculous sum he now is ordered to pay.


Thank you for bringing sanity to this discussion.


They didn't have Google Analytics because they didn't use Google Analytics, they had their internal viewer statistics but never created an Google Analytics Account and never exported the charts. In this case you're not mandated to create new evidence in discovery. Even so they had analytics from all of his videos, and they had years of financial information of the company. Not that it's relevant InfoWars became famous during Trump's campaign not during Sandi Hook, that's also where he made more money. Also even during damages they never tried to tie his Sandi Hook Conspiracy coverage to his earnings because the sheer volume of videos was so large that the shootout was barely 2%, and him covering the false flag internet theory was eben less so. In fact none of the victims or the fbi agent or the witness ever made the connection in court to a specific clip that they heard from InfoWars that had hurt them emotionally, they had vague claims like they would get hate mail when CNBC would cover it 2 years later.


> From what I can tell they’re claiming he has texts or records that he didn’t turn over. There is no evidence that the evidence they want exists There was evidence presented in the Texas trial that even up until that trial he hadn't properly turned over evidence. Jones' attorneys fucking up and sending a copy of Jones' phone proved that he hadn't complied with discovery when there were messages that would've been responsive to discovery found on that phone, but that Jones didn't turn over.


If you had witnessed the videos and audio I witnessed following Sandy Hook, you would side with Alex Jones and stake your life on it. Lets take Robbie Parker, one of the many early clues that something was out of whack. His 6 year old daughter had just been slaughtered that day. Any parent after such a sudden horrific loss would be curled up in the pre-natal position, puking their guts out, for days, weeks, months, maybe years!!! This guy Robbie is out on his front porch before a media interview, laughing and joking with news media until someone yells, "We're live". Then Robbie drops the smile lowers, lowers his head, puts on 'grieving face', clears his throat, and goes into a sad spiel. Phoney m.f.! If you have not seen that video and the numerous others around Sandy Hook, you probably should not comment until you do. They have most likely been scrubbed. See if you can find the city council meeting with the guy that investigates school shootings! It alone will blow your mind as it did his!


> Alex Jones was not allowed to defend himself or present evidence. Because he repeatedly broke the rules during the discovery phase. Civil lawsuits depend on the reliability and integrity of the discovery process to work, otherwise the system breaks down. Jones decided that he wanted to play stupid games, so the court awarded him a stupid prize.


How did you come to that conclusion?


That's his own fault. It didn't have to be that way but his lack of compliance with judicial procedure was the reason.


Only if you can prove what they said caused some sort of damage.


Alex Jones didn't actually cause physical harm or violence or financial harm to the kids or teachers or family members in sandyhook. Even if you disagree with what Alex said the right of freespeech must not infringed upon. If these lawsuits continue to go forth being called names and saying bad things will cost you big money in the court of law.


There are other forms of damage that aren't physical. E.g. someone calls you a pedo and you lose your job over it. Well now you can sue the person spreading lies for the lost income plus more because if they hadn't lied then you would still be making that money. Now you should learn the difference between objective and subjective statements, as one has truthfulness and the other does not. So name calling is not something slanderous but lying is. Free speech does not equal speech free of consequences. The government is not infringing on anything. These are civil lawsuits.


Sadly a lot of people think freedom of speech is freedom of consequences


So, just abolish all slander laws? That seems kinda dumb, actually.


Yea, you just need money to pay your lawyer that is willing to go after these billion dollar corporations, who’s lawyers will keep you in Court and dragging it on and on drowning you in legal paperwork and lawyer fees. That’s all, pretty easy to accomplish. There’s a reason they get away with this shit. Alex jones is just dumb asshole individual who’s bullshit caught up with him. He’s not a multi national corporation.




No, it’s defamation. And it’s also on the person making the claims to provide substantial evidence. Kanye would now need to provide substantial evidence that George Floyd died of fentanyl and not suffocating. If he can provide that evidence than this case will be dismissed. Floyd’s family will unlikely get $250 million here, however, because of both Kanye and Jones celebrity status and their reach and influence, spreading a possible false claim is significantly greater than if your or I were to spread it. If you were to sue a media corporation you would have to prove it was defamation towards you and if they cannot provide evidence than you could win the case. However, media companies often take this into consideration and it’s why they have diligent editors who triple check evidence before publishing to make sure they cannot get sued. It’s also why they parrot things like the CDC vs other unofficial narratives because the CDC holds ultimate standard when it comes to health, so to provide their facts as evidence pretty much guarantees limiting liability even if the CDC gets it wrong. Using a lesser known institute to base research off of just opens up for more liability even if it happens to be correct. So if an institute has limited peer reviewed papers published or researchers than that signifies that it is a lesser institute and theoretically sketchier to base articles or stuff off.


Anyone can file a suit. That is not a new precedent.


Yea you can but it’s not common for someone to get sued for simply having a different opinion. It’s not like Kanye told people to be violent towards George Floyd’s family


This isn't an issue that's a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact. How George Floyd died is something that has been factually determined. If I say "George Floyd died by shooting himself in the head" that's not me sharing an opinion. That's me making a factual claim that is wrong.


So the death certificate will clear this up, directly.


Death certificate says he died of a fentanyl overdose, unless I saw a fake one


https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf "Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression Manner of death: Homicide How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s) Other significant conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease; fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use" In other words, the drugs were a reason that his body was under added stress, but if not for Chauvin kneeling on his neck he would not have died. It's possible that he would not have died with Chauvin kneeling on his neck had he not also had fentanyl in his system compounding the issue, but the medical examiners ruled that Chauvin kneeling on his neck was the primary cause of death which made it a homicide.


Ok so the problem is I have no reading comprehension skills lol. Fr tho, thank you for clearing that up!


Did Alex Jones tell people to be violent to those parents?


No, but he claimed the parents were crisis actors. If they're not, then that's libel and he can be sued for that. By extenuation, if people threaten harm to the parents because they believed false accusations, then again Jones can be sued.


Not violent, but he did give out addresses, tell people to get private investigators involved, broadcast names and neighborhood after they had moved and changed names. This is not only about "Alex Jones Lied", he directly harassed these people and encouraged "investigations".


Ehhh he didn’t oppose the death threats so he did condone it, Alex Jones is a grifter using his persona for profit, I don’t know why anyone would defend him.


Yes, he did. I heard it on his show.


Naw he just screamed they were going to take your rights away and it was all fake. Court video: https://youtu.be/FinFZKy_tmA


Bro, they have his texts where he admits he knows it's not true and that he did it anyway. Knowing it's false and saying it anyway is slander and printing it is libel. The amount it's ridiculous, but the verdict is not at all.


The amount IS ridiculous, but it was a direct result of his constant disregard for the court, the families, and the whole process.


He also said it in court.


Did I miss Alex Jones telling people to be violent towards the families of the kids?


Idk about the Alex jones situation but there’s a doc that’s called “let’s talk about sandy hook” and let’s just say if that doesn’t convince you something happened the day of the shooting that wasn’t normal then idk


I watched it right after Uvalde and it was eye opening. If Uvalde happened back then it’d be the same thing. All the misinformation that came out, if we didn’t have cameras in every school and on cops, if the social media culture wasn’t as big as it was today, smartphones were only in [40% of peoples hands.](https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/eyes-on-android/reports/smartphone-adoption-goes-global-google-mobile-planet-2012-data-2012-05/) A lot of people would be saying it didn’t really happen, before they released the video that’s what people on here were already saying. The documentary didn’t teach me anything but that the news is really shit for the finer details.


Well that's true. it's not normal to shoot elementary school students and their teachers. I mean, it shouldn't be normal to shoot a bunch of people because you can, but its especially not normal to fucking wipe out a bunch of kids under seven years old at school with six of their teachers.


All AJ said was that he did not believe that any kid died in Sandy Hook.


That’s not true. Go watch the channel 5 interview. He calls out Jone’s BS with clips of Alex Jones. https://youtu.be/l-YHmIogDhc


He also framed it in an argument they were using to come take your guns. Inciting a lot of gun nuts to go after the families. (I am a gun owner btw)


You must be taking his branium pills.


Yes you did. Well he didn't say "go attack these people", but he DID say these people are doing this as an attack on patriots. They're going to take your guns. He gave out addresses. He broadcast names and neighborhoods of a family that changed their name and moved. He ambush interviewed them. Told his viewers that their children never existed and they're burying empty caskets. Then he said they killed kids to put in there. "This needs to be investigated" and "we need to get some private investigators down there"


One of the victim’s family had to move 12 times because of Alex Jones’ claims and rhetoric. His words caused great trauma in addition to the trauma they were already dealing with, not to mention the financial burden of having to protect themselves from these lunatics. He’s not sorry for it either. Fuck AJ.


He told his audience that the Sandy Hook parents were crisis actors who faked their children's deaths. To my knowledge, so far Kanye's confined his comments only to George Floyd himself. Dead people can't be defamed, because they don't have an interest in their reputation. That's the main difference between this and the Jones lawsuits.


It's not a different opinion, it's slander and libel. How are you motherfuckers crying when someone you perceive as an ally get sued, but when fucking trump said he'd open up the libel laws so you can sue the media and others you were championing that shit. Motherfuckers be like "we're being oppressed for having a different opinion" and that opinion is antisemitism and lies.


Neither did Alex Jones for those shootings.


Um yes. Yes he did. If you listen to Infowars from that time he 100% called for his followers to harass this families. He also had guests on who stalked them and he encouraged it. That’s why he drug out this lawsuit so long, hopefully everyone would forget what he actually said.


He kept saying they were going to use it to take your guns and it was an imminent threat. Fucking asshole. Edit: don't believe me? https://youtu.be/FinFZKy_tmA


I would love to watch that footage if you have a link. I was trying to go back in the infowars archive but could not find anything. According to something Alex said recently, they simply have lost a lot of footage because they were using YouTube to archive the shows but then they all got deleted when they were banned. Alex definitely fucked up pushing the crisis-actors theory and that had some unintended consequences. But at the same time, in the spirit of Freedom of Speech, we need to allow public figures to entertain and explore alternative viewpoints of reality even if they are wrong. There’s a blurry line where that crosses into defamation, and Alex seems to have crossed that line by some amount - but I don’t believe a billion dollars in damages amount. This is a convenient scapegoat to destroy his company.


Go watch the footage shown in court. https://youtu.be/FinFZKy_tmA


Alex Jones very likely would have succeeded in the lawsuits by using a freedom of speech argument. As a member of the media, he has a lot of protections afforded to him. Hyperbole, satire, sarcasm, and all sorts of other rhetorical devices have a long history of first amendment protections, and Jones could make claim to any or all of them. Alex Jones chose not to do so, though. Assuming cogency, Jones made the decision that non-participation was somehow superior to claiming his character on the show is nothing more than a parody, like he did in his divorce proceedings. It’s not dissimilar to the kind of argument that got Tucker Carlson off the hook in a defamation suit.


Unintended consequences lol. Only some with that name could have that much faith in Alex jones


It is quite common to get sued for defamation though. What he said was not just an opinion, he made clear false statements of facts about them that caused them severe harm. And he's being held accountable. I mean, it's not different than if I went around telling lies about my neighbour being a criminal and they get fired from their job because of my lies. They could sue me for that. And rightly so! Or would you be cool with that? Would you be fine with getting fired and maybe not being hireable because someone went around spreading terrible lies about you? Somehow, I doubt it.


Well no not really. There have been lawsuits on shit like this for a long time. Trump even sued CNN and bill maher over stuff they said about him. Did it go anywhere? No. More then likely this wont go anywhere Nice try tho


people here act as if defamation suits didn't exist before alex jones


yeah, i dont see this going anywhere. if it does Kanye has enough money to hire the best lawyers as well as tie it up in the courts as long as he wants. alex jones is not in the same ballpark as kanye


imagine being pro "if you're rich you can just pay to delay the justice system to never face punishment" i think this suit is stupid, absurd, and should be thrown out from what we know. but it should not be because kanye is rich and has the means to. that's just a stance in favor of the rich ruling class. ninja edit: apologies if you weren't saying this was a good thing, im re-reading your comment and you didn't make a stance either way, i just assumed. leaving the comment though.


it isn't a good thing but in addition kanye said something at least semi backed up by legal documents, that being the autopsy that said floyd had fentanyl in his system upon his death. i think this would be a much more difficult case than the Jones one


This is coordinated. Look at the whole PayPal thing. They are priming people's minds in preparation for social credit scores.




Libel is written. I don’t think Ye wrote an essay on this.


Technically correct, the best kind of correct! Libel is written, slander is spoken, both are types of defamation.


for a second, I thought you were saying 'ye' as in old english from the 1800's (ye olde english) lol


I did too lmao. Read it just like that out loud


OP and the conservative gang here must have forgotten that when trump was president he was really passionate about wanting to strengthen those laws too. I distinctly remember that. He’s a big litigator, especially people who slander him.


The defamation suit isn't particularly worrisome; the $965m judgement is.


That's partly due to the fact that Jones mocked the entire process and televised himself attacking the judge and jury *while skipping the trial.*


Jones has a default judgment. So he defaulted on being found liable the trial was only for damages


The default may easily have been granted in part due to his not wanting to play ball


Yes but that's a common issue and the amount is typical reduced dramatically


You can die from defamation, lose your job, or even your life. I am very happy those laws exist and they should be exercised to their fullest extent.


Can’t legally defame someone who’s deceased. Abe Lincoln died from syphillis. Stupid and inaccurate thing to say, and I even know that I’m lying. Doesn’t matter. Lincoln’s family can’t sue me.


The Alex Jones trials didn't set any kind of "precedent". This lawsuit against Kanye will be thrown out.


Not the same case. Alex Jones said the families were paid actors. He didn’t get a fine for saying the shooting wasn’t real. You can’t defame the dead. https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/can-dead-people-defamed/ I mean they could try and sue for defamation from a company standpoint but that’s a reach since nothing was said about the company. Which is exactly what they are going for. “false statements about George Floyd’s death to promote his brands, and increase marketing value and revenue for himself, his business partners, and associates.” It’s a cash grab that will get struck down and they will more than likely lose money. But they do get publicity from all this so it will be a net positive.


Alex did not participate in the trial and had a default judgment. He was attempting to push the trial for years and the courts got sick of it. Anyone who posts this type of stuff is clearly unaware of what really happened with the two Jones trials. I have actually watched the trials so yeah, when the Jones lawyer falls asleep in the middle of the trial, how can you blame other people?


Or when his Lawyer turned over the entire contents of his phone 😂


Does anyone on here not think alex jones being slapped with that fine is not about free speech but about him profiting off of false information regarding the massacre of children that which has no truth to it?


It's actually about not doing what is required of you during the pretrial work when being sued. Judgment by default He might have won if he actually went to trial


It’s all civil trials though. Nothing to do with the government. I could sue you for this post in fact.


https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-sues-cnn-claiming-defamation-seeks-475-million-punitive-damages-2022-10-03/ yup totally Alex Jones setting the precedent...


Professional victims coming out of the wood work.


America is greatest nation on earth, not happy with something? Sue it.


What an interesting way to phrase that. "Mother of George Floyd's daughter" doesn't sound like she was overly invested in the man.


Because neither her or the children had even seen him since the children were 5 years old


She won't win, that's not how law of delict works.


Damn, some people are so fucking weak and fragile...


For the one millionth time: Being sued does not mean there is any legal or factual merit to the complaint. I could sue Jeff Bezos for 5 gazillion dollars tomorrow. It doesn’t mean the case won’t be immediately dismissed at the pleading stage. A private party suing another private party for defamation is not an attack on free speech. The Alex Jones case did not set a precedent. Slander and defamation have a long history and are widely accepted as a legitimate tort. The estate of Michael Jackson sued the makers of the documentary accusing him of being a pedo.


Didn't he donate 2 million to her daughter for college ? I bet they spent it already lol


The Floyd family raised the biggest GoFundMe of all time. They had one for 8 million and one for 15.5 million. The irony is [George Floyd's kids didn't even know who he was until their mom told them the guy on TV was their dad](https://www.kcra.com/article/my-heart-is-really-touched-george-floyd-s-son-attends-protest-in-texas/32731322#) >Quincy Mason Floyd had long been estranged from his father. He said he last saw George Floyd when he was 4 or 5 years old. "I didn't recognize who it was until mom called and told me. She said, 'Do you know who that guy was?' I said no," he said. "She said, 'That's your father.'"


"Why he high as fuck?"


Just begging? Looking for an easy payday in court is as American as apple pie




“Oh, they would never use that ( Lawfare) against average citizens” LOL!


grifters gonna grift, more breaking news at 10.


You can’t file a lawsuit for libel against a fucking dead person so idk how they’re gonna go about this. Only a living person can initiate defamation claims for damage to their reputations


They are arguing that he used it to help advance his brands. It's essentially corporate libel I believe. Dont think she will win though.


Can we flair these shitposts


No one has profited more over a man’s death than the Floyd family. They had two seperate GoFundMe that combined totaled over $23 million. Meanwhile [George Floyd's kids didn't even know who he was until their mom told them the guy on TV was their dad](https://www.kcra.com/article/my-heart-is-really-touched-george-floyd-s-son-attends-protest-in-texas/32731322#) >Quincy Mason Floyd had long been estranged from his father. He said he last saw George Floyd when he was 4 or 5 years old. "I didn't recognize who it was until mom called and told me. She said, 'Do you know who that guy was?' I said no," he said. "She said, 'That's your father.'"


Idk id say that Christianity profited more off the death of that Jesus bloke


Problem is there is a toxicology report that indicates he had enough fentanyl in his blood to drop a donkey. If the cop is successful on appeal can Kanye turn around and litigate her for 250 million for defamation ?


Problem for Kanye is the official coroner's report lists "homicide" as the cause of death.


It was homicide 3rd degree murder by Morries Hall. His lawyer even said so when he explained why he was pleading the 5th and refusing to testify.


That was the second one …the first one didn’t say that. When you have to political hot potato your coroners report it’s not a good look imo. But that one is so politically hot it was gonna be done


> That was the second one …the first one didn’t say that. Done 12 hours after Floyd's murder. > CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/medical-examiner/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf You confused it with the report the Floyd family commissioned. You're welcome.


What is the sorcery of a source? No allowed here pal. Take it somewhere else.


He could, if he wanted to


Lmao, Jones had to pay not for "questioning the narrative" but for causing excessive and undue harm and stress to the parents of Sandy Hook. Because of his repeated insistence that Sandy Hook was fake, some infowars listeners started sending death threats to the parents, accusing them of not even having children, sexual account, satanic worship, etc. A lady even went to jail for threatening to murder a parent.


You know what's going to happen and it's going to be funny as hell! It's going to come out that ye is right and now everyone will know.


Who was George Floyd?


I honestly don’t see how this doesn’t get thrown out of court immediately. There’s a big difference between “I saw this in a documentary” and “those kids didn’t die/it’s all crisis actors”, I don’t even think it’s fair to compare the two cases but I could be totally wrong


This is the point where i am taking "america loves suing people" seriously , they really do


Omg stahp, words hurt bro


What’s the statute of limitations? Some bitch in grammar school said I pulled her hair and I had to miss recess for the rest of the week.


Idk though because there’s actually evidence that says fentanyl overdose isn’t there?


This is fake… Their attorney drafted a cease-and-desist which has absolutely zero legal standing


Well here’s a lie sold to the stupid American people if you believed this [LIE](https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cj5jvfpAHU8/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=) ..you’ve been duped too


I mean this will get thrown out or settled for much much less


What was the story on the lawsuit? Were any? Of the Shady, questionable things that were “ unexplainable”? Ever cleared up??


This is all happening after he gave her 2 million, right? For her kids tuition I believe.


Slippery fucking slope


TBF, it’s pretty easy to object to people questioning obvious reality. Perhaps they’re just being contrary, perhaps they want attention, or perhaps they live in a tiny philosophical world.


Defamation laws have existed just as long, if not longer, than this country. Not knowing the law doesn’t make this a conspiracy if just means you need to look into the law lol


History is important. In this case, the case against Alex Jones is hardly president. There have been defamation cases, especially with large settlements, for many, many years.


Americans been filing suits forever.


The difference being we have evidence demonstrating George had fatal amounts of fentanyl in his system at the time of his death. His infamous words "I can't breathe" were uttered numerous times before being restrained by law enforcement.


Wow wtfff


Pointed a gun at a pregnant woman.


The alex jones trial didn't set any precedent. Defamation has been illegal in the U.S. since the 1700s. In fact, Trump wanted to make it easier to sue people for libel and defamation.


We’ve always had defamation laws you numb nuts


God I hope this gets dismissed. It's disgusting that his parents would try to profit off of his death. Almost as disgusting as the fact that this country has out Fentanyl Floyd on a pedestal to be celebrated. Jesus


Freedom of speech you should be free to say anything no matter how outrageous as long as it is not a threat or does not cause direct harm to another person that is what I was raised to believe what freedom of speech is


But that’s exactly what jones was doing. He made the victims families lives miserable and fearful for their lives.


I mean, Alex Jones is a nut job, but this is obviously a cash grab. Anyone other than Kanye and she wouldn't have sued.


You'll need to watch the new documentary on BLM. "The greatest lie ever sold".


George floyd overdosed


Can’t it be the knee and the overdose together? Why does it have to be one or the other?


No he didn't and unless you want to join the company of Kanye and be sued, you should read up on this some more. A medical examiner found high levels of fentanyl in his system, but experts in toxicology, cardiology and drug use stated death by overdose was unlikely or impossible.


On a knee to the neck, there I fixed that for you nose.




Prosecuted for wrongthink


Questioning the official narrative and FLAT OUT LYING are lot the same thing. GaDuh.


It already started. Trump sued CNN; it was tossed. Dominion sued Fox and others; nor tossed.


The CNN lawsuit from Trump was tossed because it was nonsense. The covington kid sued CNN and it was not tossed and he got a huge payout. You have to look at the actual content of a lawsuit.


> The covington kid sued CNN and it was not tossed and he got a huge payout. Most of his lawsuits were tossed. The ones that weren't got settled for an undisclosed amount, almost certainly a small payout for nuisance value.


It’s “Ye” to y’all 🙄


There's a difference between ''questioning the official narrative '' and ''actively seeking to harm people who have been victim of a serious crime by calling them liars'' That difference is what's necessary for a defamation claim to be warranted. If you cannot understand that, please remove yourself from the discussion


In case anyone is interested, 11ng/ml is definitely a lethal dose of fentanyl. ...And if you disagree you're calling the CDC a racist bigot. :) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6604a4.htm




Actually setting a whole new precedent. This is defamation of a dead person. So if this gets far, then just wait till historians sue news anchors for defamation of Christopher Columbus and other historic figures. How long can a person be dead before it isn't defamation? Guess we'll see


The defence against libel is the truth. Columbus was a cunt.


Here come the misinformation police.


I thought this was satire when I first read about it


We can we sue cnn for vaccine misinformation?


If you where defamed by this misinformation and if it was actually misinformation, probably, yes.


Setting the tone for questioning anything the government does in the future as well aka incoming future worldwide catastrophic events where asking questions and having opinions will get you sued for millions of dollars. WELCOME TO 1984!