Quote (duffman316 @ Oct 12 2022 06:37pm)
My understanding is he incited the harassment of the survivors that ensued.
Its one thing to say the holocaust didnt happen. Its another thing entirely to spread that message to the extent that your followers start harassing old jews over their tattoos.
can we sue all the journalists over the false reporting on the jesse smoulette case? you should see the hate when i put a MAGA hat on. just 1 of numerous examples where this can be applied in the future now.
i don't mean to badger you too hard saying such, i don't sit where ppl would expect me to on this subject. the can of worms should be opened already.
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Oct 12 2022 06:26pm)
He was not bankrupt, so that would be a lie. You don't get to lie in court.
You don't have first amendment rights to slander and libel. So you don't get to make that defense.
The "restrictions" you are talking about are normal, reasonable, and absolutely necessary to a functioning court system.
The fact that you're asking what was so damaging shows you aren't really interested in being honest about this subject. You can very easily google what he was accused of and the effects it had on the families. It's all a matter of public record.
he has been going through bankruptcy procedures along with other involved companies. he was not allowed to speak on those issues. strangely, the judge ordered he answer a related question after ordering him not to answer these questions. so AJ had to remind her that she has been blocking him from speaking on the subjects.
my point on damages being. where is the direct correlation of anyone causing damage, to the words Alex Jones have said? i don't recall the prosecution bringing even a "single witness" to state their actions were because they watched Alex Jones.
i skipped some parts of it, so if i'm wrong lmk.