But he did give the order to. Regardless it is a poor example.
Alex Jones..
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
Caporegime
Hence they are not pressing him with criminal charges pushing for the death penalty, but a civil one for money.
The punishment fits the crime to me! (I am sure some people want him locked up too)
I wasn't talking about whether the punishment fits the crime. IMO the real issue is that families had been contacted and abused after their kids had died from the people who watched infowars. I don't think any of them actually give a **** about his opinion. What they do give a **** about was getting abused by his fans.
Caporegime
His radio show was the stem and the cause and the platform which created this fake news that resulted in everything that followed.
Considering the post you quoted acknowledges that it was people who watched infowars that abused them. I fail to see what point you are making?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,691
I do think you have a point..... Personally (and call m a dinosaur) but i think social media and all it entails does far more harm than good.... i would happily throw the book at anyone who contacted and abused them as well.... but ultimately it is the person who made baseless claims in the 1st place who must carry most of the can.
That said....... (maybe a mild but related segue) the quality of what was once considered somewhat "respected" journalism doesnt help either. When you read some of the nonsence posted in main stream media sometimes, framed very carefully that "a source said" with the shield of anonymity, with maybe a page 11 tiny retraction posted 2 weeks later it is no wonder that some influencers think they can spout what ever they want without recourse.
like freedom of speech i support freedom of the press, however people wielding that influence have a lot of responsibility to do at least some actual fact checking before spouting any old BS from an anonymous source just to sell a few papers or get a few clicks.
Last edited:
I see the point @Raymond Lin is making very easily...
The "real issue" is that NOT that families of the victims were abused and harassed. That was as a result and direct consequence of Alex's Jones actions, comments and lies.
The "real issue" is that if he hadn't been spouting his lies in the first place, NONE of his listeners /viewers would have gone on to abuse the families of the Sandy Hook Victims.
Caporegime
Yes, people who WATCHED INFOWARS.
See where the origin is? in your own sentence? Hence they are suing him, which the law allows, and the jury found him guilty.
It passes every tests.
It's not too dissimilar to why the forum here do not allow medical advice from armchair experts. Some people take it literally and can cause harm.
Had MSNBC sprouted the same nonsense, they would have sued MSNBC too no doubt.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,691
indeed, imagine i decided to do a tirade against someone with baseless accusations that a person was a child abuser...... and that person was then assaulted by a vigilante group...... yes of course those carrying out the assault are guilty, but would anyone seriously argue that I also should not be prosecuted as well?
Man of Honour
The Hitler comparison stands, if Alex Jones, Infowars and what he said hadn't existed it wouldn't have happened.
The followers of Infowars hold on to his every word no matter how crazy it is so he's to blame.
Charles Manson never killed anybody, it was his followers so should he walk?
I just notice that it wasn't clear what part of your post i disagreed with.
It was specfically this part. Though i quoted more orginally.
I agree that ultimately he is responsible, but i was more referencing how they would feel. Yes it is awful to be called a liar after such a tragedy but to me that is small fry next to them being contacted abused and it just seems to get left out all the time.
You appear to have concept of what you think i'm arguing in your head that doesn't match up with what I am arguing.
I mean really it depends what you said, the details matter, if you said "I believe this person may be a child abuser for X reasons" then you should be allowed to state that even if you are proved to be wrong. You aren't allowed to state "I believe this person is a child abuser and someone should do something about them", or something along those lines. People like Jimmy Saville don't get caught because people are afraid to speak out, "oh what, Jimmy the bloke from the TV who does all the charity work abuses kids? You're crazy man".
People need to be allowed to say things and be wrong. There will be times when someone like Alex Jones accuses someone of something that seems to be crazy and they'll end up being completely right, and in the world we're creating we'd choose to silence that person.
Caporegime
I know what you are saying, the people who went after the family has some responsibility too (criminal), but Alex Jones also has some responsibility which in his case, civil. They can BOTH be held accountable.
No that is not what I am saying. I am not talking about who is responsible or who should be sued.
Soldato
It's like the age-old shouting 'fire' in a theatre thing. You're not making people stampede and crush, but you're knowingly creating the conditions for it to happen.
I don't think Alex Jones intended to cause people to commit violent actions simply by making accusations that turned out to not be true. He had been doing a show on conspiracies for a long time, he didn't do that show in order to get people to commit violent acts, there was no intent by him.
You're late to the party and I think that conversation has already been resolved.
Soldato
The fire in a theatre thing isn't about deliberately getting people hurt either. it's about creating a mischief which has foreseeably injurious consequences.