The allegation is that you used your speech in a way that isn't covered by the first amendment. You have to defend yourself on the merits of the case and that's it.

You don't get to argue second amendment rights if you shot a gun into somebody else's property or endangered somebody else. You have to defend yourself by showing you didn't do it, or had a good reason to do it, etc. Not just in a nebulous manner that "it's my right".

This ain't hard to understand

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 12 2022 11:48pm

were moving to criminal and out of civil with this analogy.
using this though, it would be up to the prosecution to prove the murder. the burden of proof is not on the defendant. this analogy also already infers guilt.
likewise, it was up to the plaintiff to prove damages.

my point is that it was AJ's case was that "he didn't defame anyone". part of his case was defining the 2 terms, "defamation" and "freedom of speech". and then portraying examples of prior cases that his counsel would believe help the jury rule in their favor.
now you again, don't have to agree with anything from AJ's counsel. but it's insinuating guilt before the trial if you are not even able to represent the alternative.

Onus of proof is on the plaintiff to establish criminal in this case civil damages and the defendant to disprove them. Otherwise you are dealing with precrime and speculation. Your entire premise if taken and applied to the world at large would create he said she said shitstorm of gossip. Fuck it I want a billion dollars from marvel because she hulk has trashed masculinity and invited pink haired weirdos to send me death threats.

This post was edited by addone on Oct 13 2022 12:56am

I mean, they can establish he made specific defamatory statements about one (not so much the others) of the plaintiffs, and that he reasonably should have known his statements were false and acted with disregard when he made them, and that the aggrieved parties suffered at least some injury to wellbeing and financial cost like needing to move from their home. Even if we exclude the more tenuous claims and ignore the more speculative potential harms of what other people could have possibly done, and stick just to reasonably foreseeable liability, there's still grounds to say Jones should owe them something in the realm of $100k.

Publicly slandering (badmouthing, telling lies) about someone without proof is one thing but being responsible for someone else's actions is entirely another. I think if AJ can't provide good enough reason then sure a fine for that is appropriate. A public apology would go a long way also.

Political witch hunt and nothing more.

Moral of the story: Go against us and we will come after you.

By this metric Kyle Rittenhouse will be the richest man on planet earth.

He made a public apology years ago

The people who support this whole thing don’t know anything about the situation besides a trump supporter is getting it straight up the ass.

defamation of character? does the alex jones court set a precedence for kyle rittinhouse, maybe get himself a billion?........REEEEEEEEEEE
The Utter Farce of the Alex Jones Kangaroo Court Trial Verdict
https://www.bitchute.com/video/raFshBNmSIIP/