Go ahead and talk about it.

He won't. Alex Jones is the straw man.

True true true true.

Hah! I've been spamming r/conspiracy with the video of Jones outside the courthouse for the last 4 years!

I'd like to think I played a minor role in getting Alex Jones exposed for the CIA shill he is.

It's no longer acceptable to dismiss his actions as "just a crazy guy with a lot of passion".

He's a spook, and his message is 100% disinformation.

I hate when people try to say, "but he wakes people up, he is still an effective tool".

Bullshit. The rate he wakes people up vs. the rate he puts people to sleep is all that matters.

Here's the video of Jones for anyone that hasn't seen it.

Alex Jones Blows His Cover in Austin

Ah nice, love this video lol its so, pathetic how he tries SO hard. Its like dude, chill out, you're making everyone looking for the real truth look bad, which I assume was his intended purpose.

Good job bud, I've been trying to tell everyone I know that AJ is bull shit for years now too. Feels kinda bittersweet being vindicated this way.

Disclaimer, I think the shooting happened... I'm with ya tho, this is Alex Jones's opportunity to put on record that the massacre happened. But, is the burden of proof going to be on him?

Will all of the authors and YouTubers who posted info that it was staged, be called as witnesses to support Alex Jones's?

In the case of these crisis actors who were identified, will they brought in as witnesses?

What's some of the evidence that leads you to believe it happened?

I'm genuinely curious since I'm still forming an opinion

Sorry, I thought I was replying to you with things I have seen that lead me to believe it was true. Ultimately people have proven over and over again that their evil knows no bounds.

First of all, Jones is the Defendant. Meaning he doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs to show that Jones said some mean things and as a result, the Plaintiffs were harmed or damaged.

Jones' defense will put on its case in at the trial, which I'm very interested to watch. I'm no fan of Jones. I think he's a snake oil salesman of the worst sort and nuttier than a fruit cake. But...he has every right to be a loud obnoxious nut ball. This might be an important case for independent media and free speech, so that's why I'm interested..

Well, he's selling vitamins and survival food. That's it.

Of course he doesn't believe what he's saying. He's pandering to a growing crowd of disenfranchised people who mistrust the government and corporations (The Globalists!).

But don't kid yourself. He's not a true believer in anything except the almighty dollar.

I think AJ's strategy in this case is a real mistake too but then he probably knows the consequences better than us here.

Meaning he doesn't have to prove anything.

No but isn't the suit for slander? Isn't truth an absolute defense against charges of slander? All he has to do is prove Sandy Hook was a hoax and he's not only in the clear but he has broken the biggest story of government corruption in my lifetime.

I've listened to Jones a fair amount, he's never really proved anything. I've frequently challenged his supporters to give an example of a time Jones did original reporting that turned out to be true. No one ever has.

I believe there is more than one suit. The Connecticut Law Tribune has an article with the full text of one suit online and this Petition is seeking damages based on defamation, which is related, but technically different than slander. Read the Petition entirely for an idea of what the Plaintiff has to prove.

And why would Jones jump through all the hoops of proving Sandy Hook was a hoax, when his defense is basically that he has the right to say what he wants because he's an actor and his show is an outrageous performance that no sane person would take literally?

Which, to my untrained eye, looks like a pretty solid strategy.

And why would Jones jump through all the hoops of proving Sandy Hook was a hoax,

You are asking why someone who claims to have dedicated his life to exposing "truth" would not want to demonstrate the truth of one of his most outrageous claims in a public forum?

when his defense is basically that he has the right to say what he wants because he's an actor and his show is an outrageous performance that no sane person would take literally?

You are saying that's his defense in this case? That is a gross mis-statement of something his lawyer "sort of said" (your phrasing is a gross mis-statement of what was actually said, and Jones didn't even say it, his attorney did). But that was in his child custody case.

For the record, Jones has already said he personally believes the shooting happened. You can read his Motion to Dismiss here for some insight on Jones' attorney's strategy and defense.

I don't speak for Jones. I don't want to speak for Jones. I want to speak for the right and responsibility of people to question the main stream media and to hold the government accountable for its actions. And if some crazy bugger in a golf shirt screaming about gay frogs is the catalyst for an end to media manipulation of the narrative over the recitation of the facts well then so be it.

Before he decided he thinks the shooting was real, he repeatedly said it was fake and that no kids died and that the parents were paid actors.

He cant unring that bell.

He can say whatever the fuck he wants, it's a free country.

This case will be dropped because discovery could cause a lot of issues. It's pure theatrics from all parties.

You don't just get to say whatever you want. If you defame someone they get to sue you which is exactly what's Happening Here. The only way that this case doesn't go to trial is if Alex Jones realizes how much he's going to lose and settles out of court

Anyone can sue anybody for anything. I don't think you realize how strict our libel/slander laws are in this country compared to most others. Alex will win this if he fights or settle for nothing.

He knowingly lied claiming that no one died and that the kids were child actors. He called ths parents liars

Its clear cut defamation

Did he specifically name a single person?

Who is he defaming? Why don't you listen to the clips and think for yourself instead of regurgitating the msm talking points.

This will be dropped before it goes to trial because it's a fraud.

He claimed the entire thing was a hoax. He said they were child actors. He called the parents liars.

This case isnt getting dropped and you knoe it.

He would have to name a specific parent by name. That’s how slander works.

Absolutely untrue. Are you just making stuff up as you go along?

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/who-can-sue-defamation

Ok, so upon further research, I stand corrected. I did learn a lot about the differences between “slander” (spoken) and “libel” (printed) and how they are both a form of defamation. Depending on the Jurisdiction and who is the prosecutor in the charges (state, fed or civil, criminal) what I said about naming a specific person hold true, but in most cases they do not

Yes it will, and I know it. They can't take a chance with discovery.

I'm sure they're actually looking forward to discovery.

Why do you think they "can't take a chance"? There's nothing that could possibly come out that would be harmful to them, unless you also believe the entire shooting was a hoax and that the parents are lying about their children being murdered.

It was a huge fraud, you can go back to sleep.

He has every right to his opinion. You can't sue for hurt feelings.

Theyre not. Theyre suing for defamation.

The same thing. You can't sue for defamation because I think you are bad. I can think you are a reptilian shapeshifter. My opinion isn't defamation.

Has he specifically named a single person in doing so? If not, you know its getting dropped....

He doesn't need to name anyone specifically and if you knew anything about media law you would know that.

Yes you do. The fact that you are parroting that is pretty telling...

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/who-can-sue-defamation

Accordingly, defamatory statements about a group or class of people generally are not actionable by individual members of that group or class. There are two exceptions to this general rule that exist when:

the group or class is so small that the statements are reasonably understood to refer to the individual in question; or
the circumstances make it reasonable to conclude that the statement refers particularly to the individual in question.

So it would revolve around the idea of what is considered small. I guess we shall see...

We already do see. Jones's lawyer didn't even bother trying to file a motion to dismiss on these grounds because he and everyone else who knows anything about media law understands that the issue is settled.

How is it settled? The link you used to back up your previous claim says that it is generally accepted that a group of 25 or less would have the standing to sue - but there were far more than 25 people in the group.

Are you saying because the lawyer hasn't filed motion to dismiss on such grounds yet - that he won't?

Welcome to America, where a good legal defense beats out the truth any day.

I'm not sure why people down vote the truth

Last I checked, a general rule for libel cases is that burden falls on the plaintiff to prove that what was said is false. So, in the case of the sandy hook shootings, it would mean the defendants have to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that SH was real. This should be easily verifiable by 2012 photo and data storage capabilities- especially of an event where they had the FBI and shit involved.

So This should be interesting, because if the case were to go to trial it may force Connecticut to actually release the crime scene photos to the judge and jury. But judges and juries can also be bought for less than most court cases so..... in the end the case would probably be used to further censor free thinking and open discussion by the media.

The plaintiff has to prove damages as a result of what was said. So no, they don't have to prove Sandy Hook was real. They have to prove that they suffered damages as a direct result of what Jones said on his show.

But they also have to prove what he said was false. If he spoke the truth, (He didn’t), then it doesn’t matter if it harmed them.

No. You don't just get to claim damages from something someone said, without first proving what they said was false. Otherwise people would get in trouble for damages for telling the truth. Are you claiming that is the current state of affairs?

Why would they need crime scene photos? If they actually do have to prove that the Sandy Hook shooting really happened (and I'm not sure if that's true), then just present their kids' death certificates and call to the stand the police officers who responded.

. I've frequently challenged his supporters to give an example of a time Jones did original reporting that turned out to be true. No one ever has.

Challenge me then. Alex Jones was the first one to teaach me that Bohemian Grove is thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove

Today on his show he tacked about the Technocrats Colluding to Censor free speech:

https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2018/08/youtube-temporarily-shuts-down-h3h3-podcast-for-discussing-alex-jones-censorship/66155/

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/TeleSUR-English-Removed-From-Facebook-for-the-Second-Time-20180813-0009.html

https://www.maxlaumeister.com/blog/google-is-deleting-your-favorite-youtube-videos/

He talked about the Jacobin Secret Society:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin

He Talked about one of the Heads of DNC, Keith Ellison, Being a Sexual/Physical abuser, and the MSM completely covering it up:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-16554357/the-goats-with-spider-genes-and-silk-in-their-milk

He talked about CFR and Builderberg making these decision to Censo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

He talked about Soros funding the Atlantic Counsel, Which Facebook uses as its Thought Police:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-13/george-soros-funded-think-tank-attacks-disobedient-media-william-craddick-over-eu-co

https://theantimedia.com/atlantic-council-facebook-nato/

Gay Frogs, got that covered:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/

He's Talked about Genetically Modified Spider Protein Goats. Got that:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-16554357/the-goats-with-spider-genes-and-silk-in-their-milk

I can do this all day. Let's reverse though. Show me examples of why he should be banned from all the major platforms. I'll wait.

In the mean time, let this be public record that u/NoOpinionsPleaseEver was given examples of Jones being right when challenging a supporter.

the left send out their satellite hive mind zombie signal to hate someone, and no logic can get in the way. ie, they used pizzagate to help bring him down, a conspiracy he denied from the start, which his supporters were angry and called him a coward for not pushing it... (now we know why, at the time he said it was a psyop against the right. so they used a conspiracy he didn't even believe to target him?)

He "talked about", that's not the question. The question is what has he himself uncovered through original reporting? My take on that is nothing.

In the mean time, let this be public record that u/NoOpinionsPleaseEver was given examples of Jones being right when challenging a supporter.

Oh sure, anything else you want as public record? You can levitate, have a ten inch wang? You can't just say something and make it so.

The only thing you claim as original reporting on Jones's part is Bohemian Grove, which is great but Spy Magazine did the same thing ten years before him. Just because YOU hadn't heard of it doesn't mean it was an original story.

Also of note Jones has changed his story over the years about what happened at Bohemian Grove (he was just telling the new version on Coast to Coast AM this morning). Also there was another person with him who disagrees with most of Jones reporting on the story.

Let's reverse though. Show me examples of why he should be banned from all the major platforms. I'll wait.

And you won't... Pretty fucking telling.....

Because the private companies decided that hosting his shity inflammatory content was no longer going to add to their bottom line, and could be a contributing factor to the loss of users who were tired of infowars worthless bull shit... no one has a right to be published in the new york times.

Show me examples of why he should be banned from all the major platforms.

But you still won't....and its pretty fucking telling....

Because I not only never said he should be banned I have loudly argued that he should not be banned.

Where did you get any other idea?

Technically he proved that elites meet secretly behind closed doors to discuss foreign policy, ie. Bilderberg. He didnt really break it, but definitely exposed it.

but definitely exposed it.

But he did not original reporting. I had been reading about Bilderberg long before Jones even had a show.

it also showed the general public dead ass proof that tech conglomerates unite together on a crusade to silence all opposition

He has the right to be obnoxious but saying someone is a liar is a classic and common defamation claim. They have to prove that he lied about them and that it caused damages... I think they will be able to do both

AJ making money is not the same as causing damage to another party.

You're right. The parents being harassed by Alex Jones's listeners, having to leave their jobs and move away from Newtown, getting death threats because of it … those are just some of the damages they're going to present to the court.

End of thread right here. There's nothing else that needs to be said, except that OP is lacking the adequate mental faculties to make a post on this topic.

The burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs to show that Jones said some mean things and as a result, the Plaintiffs were harmed or damaged

If I recall correctly, in civil suits, the prosecution only has to prove their case to a preponderance of the evidence, which is a lesser standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt". So, they only have to convince the jury it is more likely than not that he is guilty. Meaning that, as the defendant, saying he doesn't have to prove anything is misleading, while technically true.

It is interesting to see how media can dominate a subject with bully tactics by appealing to emotion. The mere thought of questioning the event has become synonymous with scum.

Perhaps this was the intent? Jones comes across as a nut. And for being so popular, even in MSM, people take their perception of him and apply to all the people that question these sorts of events.

"You think 9/11 has some fishy circumstances? Hah, I bet you believe in shape shifting reptilians too, dumbass!"

I think it's more likely than not that somewhere in the universe exist shapeshifting reptilians. If they made it all the way here, they are not masquerading as dumbass politicians.

It is interesting to see how media can dominate a subject with bully tactics by appealing to emotion.

This is an excellent point. I think a savvy viewer should keep an eye/ear open for those topics. If you bother to count all the faux gasps and outrage in a typical CNN day I'll bet it's a pretty high number.

Bill Jones is a gatekeeper. So this trial much like everything else the actor known as Alex hicks has been doing is all for show.. An when you control both sides you control the flow of information and the results you want. He knows what he should and should not be doing.

Not sure why you're getting downvoted on a conspiracy forum. Could you share your best evidence? People need to hear about this.

I used to think the Bill Hicks conspiracy was weak but the more I look into it, the more it seems like reality.

The tooth thing is what has me leaning towards it being a thing.

He will be focused on defending himself from a million dollar lawsuit, not using the court as a stage for activism. The court proceeding will be filled with debate on what Jones really said vs what it is claimed he said.. I'm sure they will be going back through all the videos and articles that they claim he said something wrong in.

Look into Wolfgang Halbig. He was sued for what he said about Sandy Hook and the people that were suing him dropped the case right before the court date.

Same thing would happen in this case. Nobody is going to court. It's theatrics.

Really? They dropped the case against him?

Yep....

As an example but there are more out there

http://americanfreepress.net/37469-2/

It's the same family sueing Jones!!! Pozner.

Yep it's a SLAPP.

Strategic lawsuit against public participation

A strategic lawsuit against public participation is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

We need a law where loser pays court fees and costs of attorneys.

The point is that he is going to drop the case before he allows it to actually go to court.

I understand that. But if the loser were on the hook for costs, there wouldn’t be nearly as many of that.

Pozner is quietly funded for this, to however much it will cost the lawyers. I agree with you, but this isn't a random person with an average savings account feeling like he can win.

In the end there is nothing to sue about. He has the right to his opinion. Can I sue Al Gore because he said Florida would be under water by 2015?

Seriously, I wish someone would. When someone in a crowded theater cries "Fire" and he's a former Vice President, there should be a separate free speech clause. When that kind of misrepresentation sways public opinion towards legislation involving taxes, when it instigates fear on a global scale... Yeah, this is somehow criminal – but since "propaganda" is legal, there goes the case.

Geezus, I just realized I countered you but also agree. There's nothing at all to sue about. I love Michael Rivero's quote, "The truth needs no laws to defend it," (maybe lifted from someone else, but he's the one who uses it as a near-slogan).

If it was CNN would go to the chair.

An example of a "chilling effect."

Try asking around popehat.com, you might get a free speech attorney on your side.

Halbig is named in the current lawsuit in Texas against Alex Jones.

This is exactly right these are fraudulent lawsuits, it's only about the press.

They also threatened his family. Not good for Wolfgang. But he is the hero we need

look at Prof. James Tracy. He was a tenured communications professor at Florida Atlantic University. Fired due to his side interest in the lack of true sandy hook coverage. They will silence you.

Pretty sure Tracy lost his job for his affiliation with 911 Truth but I could be thinking of Fetzer.

That's a rather bold statement to post for being "pretty sure."

That is the least bold of most of the statements I make.

I even said I wasn’t sure.

I just remember that a few professors lost their jobs in the days following 9/11 because they did not believe the official story.

There was a 9/11 Scholars website that a bunch of them, including James Fetzer, started but they had disagreements about their messaging because Fetzer started endorsing the mini-nuke theory.

It’s been awhile so yeah, I don’t remember all of the details.

You are pretty sure enough to post this but not google it first? He was the one interviewed by anderson cooper about sh. His blog memoryhole was all about the anomolies of the coverage regarding sh. Source: lived 5 houses away while all this shit went down.

Hmmm... I was right. And you were right.

He was involved in 911 as this article points out.

https://www.mondialisation.ca/teaching-911-to-conspiracy-theorists/5502360

But he was fired for his views on Sandy Hook.

His blog did post stuff on many other ffe's but he never spoke of them in class or around campus. The heat from the school came when he went on anderson cooper and really just pointed out that some things didnt jive with what happened. Total railroading of a good professor.

And to say he was involved in 911 has got to bea typo. "Only in the last college class he taught over a twenty year career in academe (13 of which were spent at Florida Atlantic University) did he have a chance to carefully examine and discuss September 11"

lol, Jones isn't even one of the people who took a firm stance against the official Sandy Hook story.
Get someone who knows more about it.
They bring the Sandy Hook card in for smearing, and for scaring journalists who might be getting ideas about reporting on the serious issues with the Sandy Hook story.
Same thing they did with 9/11 and it was extremely effective.

There are no "serious issues" with the Sandy Hook story, though. The only arguments claiming it was fake, a hoax, etc., are so painfully shaky that they fall apart with the smallest bit of critical analysis.

It is one of the most blatant staged events, as anyone can see if they track down the documentary 'we need to talk about sandy hook'. The deep state fucked up big time on that. funny how we get upvote brigades demanding you not look into it or question it anywhere it's discussed. not suspicious at all.

Out of interest, why are your up votes legit, but the other person's up votes due to an up vote brigade?

https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/mask-off-social-media-censor-king-revealed/

You're gerting downvoted because there is not a single bit of evidence that it was a fake.

But for the sake of argument, give us the one bit of evidence that proves it's fake. I dont want a mountain of bullshit, just the one smoking gun. Convince me.

Which of Wolfgang Halbig's concerns did you find to be BS and we can start from there to discuss further evidence

All of them are BS, so give me the smoking gun. If you think it was fake there has to be one really really solid piece of evidence that proves that, so give it to us

Which arguments did you find to be shaky?

Every single one of them

Because he has no case. Dudes a fraud always has been. He's the Trump of conspiracy theorists

The plaintiffs won't show up. In Habig's case the plaintiff had used multiple identities over time and Habig's defense requested proof of identity via birth certificate. Plaintiff could not provide. #fishy.

Alex Jones is a CIA agent. Sandy Hook still killed people, Adam Lanza still shot up the school, what should be investigated is the FBI practices that targetted him and blackmailed him into becoming a mass shooter.

I guarantee you, there's worse and more subtle programs descended from MKUltra, and they're creating school shooters and mass murderers for the sake of population control.

Sandy Hook still happened. Alex Jones is fascist scum that sold out and just wants to leech off the conspiracy movement when he got them all supporting Trump, convincing people he was ever anti-establishment to begin with.

Population control? - reductio ad absurdum - Wouldn't you simply start by eliminating tax subsidies for having children? Seems like a lot more work and costs far more to run secret programs if the goal is population control. The government wants more people, otherwise they wouldn't incentivise having more and more children. They would insist that schools teaxh proper sex Ed and provide profalactics. Vasectomies and having tubes tied would be required to be covered by insurance.

Just a wild speculation here. Probably has been repeated on this sub numerous times.

Maybe hes a a paid shill, makes outrageous claims and became nearly universally hated in the mainstream specifically so tech companies can start censoring wrongthink.

Wasn’t it someone on his show who said it? Pretty sure he just said it was sketchy immediately after

First Alex Jones says it didn't happen. Above all else, this makes me believe it happened.

Second FBI reports that were available to be read supported the investigations and events....Although now that we are seeing the FBI and Justice Dept, has been weaponized and became another political branch of the DNC, there is now a credibility issue with them.

Third, they try to say this kid didn't exist and that he was made up, and yet we have his mother, father and brother. All of whom have been verified to exist.

Fourth, this was covered by a lot of news agencies, they couldn't possibly spread lies and attempt to mislead the public. The news always tells us the truth, right?

I have more

Hah all good points. Fifth, remember that it reportedly happened to children. We should never question anything if children are involved. Even though they are make-believe children and old photos of their siblings...they are still children...kind of. Never risk being a terrible person and social outcast. Do the right thing and move on so we can focus on gun control.

Alex Jones has stated his case over and over again. Ill summarize it for you OP.

Jones believes Sandy Hook happened. He originally thought it was fishy but after more info came out he changed his stance. The lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous and really just a waste of everyones time.

Well even if he believes it now, he did call it a hoax and that the children were actors. It's nice that he's finally come around to the truth, but you can't unring that bell.

what bell though? who cares what he believed anyway? nothing he said has effected anyone

Because his fans went after the families of the victims.

Im from CT and literally nothing has happened to the family's at all. The house from that " a haunting in CT" movie has been a bigger problem than this

Sleep with the lights OFF!

It's one narrative they really can't let slip. Full force heavy mute and public prosecution for the doubters.

Maybe he's making all kinds of arguments in his favor. How would we know?

He's drinking whiskey on the back porch and explaining it to his hounds.

Alex Jones is a plant. It's supposed to scare the public into thinking that telling the truth is worthy of a trip to the courts.

Bill Hicks is controlled opposition, that's why

I started to really dive into the Sandy Hook (lack of) evidence, about 3 years ago...my understanding was that AJ wasn’t touching Sandy Hook! I watched hours of Wolfgang Halbig’s FOIA hearings...they refused him basic information! It was the strangest thing! I viewed videos of the event & much more...zero from AJ!!! When I heard that HE was being sued, it almost confirmed to me that he is working for, or being blackmailed by the Deep State! He should be screaming for documents & info that has been hidden from the public, but nothing! I think AJ will settle out of court, NOT fight it...that will be the true sign that he’s compromised.

It could be tactics; Maybe Jones is "playing possum", and giving them a false sense of security, that wilk push them into court. Then he will unleash a motherload of info and evidence.

Nothing about Sandy Hook makes sense and the court case will be a brilliant tactic to air all the weirdness out into the open.

Because it is all bullshit.

Because he is an actor and controlled by the very people who perpetrated said event.

Any of them the "laughing parents" or the "NC doppelganger parent"?

Youtube deleted pretty much every Sandy Hook video that wasn't neywork news, i.e. government propaganda.

Hello Orwell.

AJ making money is not the same as causing damage to another party.

Let's reverse though. Show me examples of why he should be banned from all the major platforms. I'll wait.

And you won't... Pretty fucking telling.....