Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls. New! ELECTION 2016, Issues and Leaders

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby mothra » 01 Aug 2018, 13:43

Alex Jones, Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods, Faces a Legal Crossroads

Can't paste in article, got 403'ed. Monk!


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/alex-jones-defamation-suit-sandy-hook.html
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5523
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby HBS Guy » 01 Aug 2018, 17:10

Am getting somewhere, is all taking too fucking long but getting there!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49994
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby HBS Guy » 01 Aug 2018, 17:12

AUSTIN, Tex. — In the five years since Noah Pozner was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., death threats and online harassment have forced his parents, Veronique De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner, to relocate seven times. They now live in a high-security community hundreds of miles from where their 6-year-old is buried.

“I would love to go see my son’s grave and I don’t get to do that, but we made the right decision,” Ms. De La Rosa said in a recent interview. Each time they have moved, online fabulists stalking the family have published their whereabouts.

“With the speed of light,” she said. “They have their own community, and they have the ear of some very powerful people.”

On Wednesday in an Austin courtroom, the struggle of the Sandy Hook families to hold to account Alex Jones, a powerful leader of this online community, will reach a crossroads. Lawyers for Noah Pozner’s parents will seek to convince a Texas judge that they — and by extension the families of eight other victims in the 2012 shooting that killed 20 first graders and six adults — have a valid defamation claim against Mr. Jones, whose Austin-based Infowars media operation spread false claims that the shooting was an elaborate hoax.
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49994
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby mothra » 02 Aug 2018, 17:56

User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5523
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby HBS Guy » 02 Aug 2018, 19:18

Ahahaha that idiot would believe anything! InfoWars his favorite news channel.
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49994
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby mothra » 04 Aug 2018, 13:35

Mechanic?

Alex Jones’s Attorneys Argue That No Reasonable Person Would Believe What He Says

n April, the ever-ascending media empire that is Alex Jones’s Infowars was served with its most serious threat. Several lawsuits—including one by the parents of a child killed during the Sandy Hook school massacre in Connecticut, and one by a man inaccurately identified by Infowars as the suspect in the Parkland shooting earlier this year—were filed in Travis County, each alleging defamation by Jones and his company. The possibility that this could derail Jones’s enterprise was real: defamation cases against media companies are hard for plaintiffs to win, but Infowars is no ordinary media company, and the charges reflected practices far outside of traditional journalism.

That’s not an accident. Jones’s brand is built upon the idea that he’s a lone crusader against the mainstream media, telling his audience bold truths about a world that he claims lies to them constantly. For about the first decade and a half of his career, he did so very much as a fringe character in the media landscape, an Austin-based outlaw spouting off conspiracies about black helicopters, vaccines, the CIA, and 9/11. His influence grew after the election of Obama in 2008, as “patriot” groups and militias took hold around the country, and Jones’s theories and aesthetic found a much larger constituency. As it did, his business model shifted, too—from being funded largely by DVD sales and advertising to turning into an outlet for dietary supplements intended to protect users from the sort of health-related conspiracies that Jones railed against on his show.

With that increased influence—he’s one of President Trump’s key media defenders, and Trump, during the 2016 presidential campaign, appeared on Infowars to gush to the host about his “amazing” reputation—Jones has faced increased scrutiny. Last year, during a bitter custody trial with his ex-wife, Jones’s attorneys had to walk a tightrope in the courtroom between acknowledging that part of his persona is, in fact, an act he plays up for the cameras—lest the jury find him an unfit father—and maintaining for the sake of his audience that he actually does believe every word he says.

Now, he’s once more facing a legal challenge—and his attorneys are once more tasked with arguing that Jones doesn’t really mean what he says on his broadcasts, while also doing their best to maintain his credibility.

The two suits against Jones will have their initial hearings this week at the Travis County Courthouse. The first, brought against him by Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, parents of a six-year-old named Noah who was killed at Sandy Hook in 2012, is based on statements Jones made during a video that lives on YouTube as “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed.” In that video, Jones—who has a history of denying the Sandy Hook shooting, having previously (and outside the statute of limitations for the defamation suit) argued that the massacre might have been a “false flag” by a government seeking to restrict gun rights—once more challenges the idea of the Pozner family as victims.

The family’s argument hinges on the fact that, last June, a woman named Lucy Richards was sentenced to five months in prison for sending threats to Pozner and De La Rosa, accusing them of participating in a hoax and threatening their lives for it. In that case, the court found that Jones and Infowars so influenced Richards’s thinking on the matter that, according to documents filed by the plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Bankston and obtained by Texas Monthly, the terms of her sentence also include that, after her release, Richards would “be prohibited from viewing Infowars programming.” As a result, Bankston says, “This suit was brought because the Pozner family cannot let Mr. Jones’s malicious lies put their lives at further risk.”

Most of the instances of Jones painting the family and the Sandy Hook massacre as fake happened outside of the statute of limitations. (In 2014, for example, he said on the air that “Sandy Hook is synthetic, completely fake, with actors—in my view, manufactured.”) Bankston’s arguments acknowledge those statements, but use the fact that the family didn’t sue earlier to refute an argument by Jones’s lawyer, Mark Enoch, that their true intention behind filing the lawsuit is “to silence those who openly oppose their very public ‘herculean’ efforts to ban the sale of certain weapons, ammunition and accessories, to pass new laws relating to gun registration and to limit free speech.” If that were true, Bankston argues, the Pozners “could have sued Mr. Jones long ago for any one of these countless libels.” Instead, he writes, “they chose to persevere” until their lives were threatened by Richards. Instead of the earlier arguments, then, the Pozners focus on comments made in April 2017, in which Jones claims that an interview between De La Rosa and CNN host Anderson Cooper in Newtown, Connecticut, was faked, and that they filmed it in front of a green screen. The “evidence” Jones presents that this is “a fake” during the broadcast is that “when [Cooper] turns, his nose disappears repeatedly because the green screen isn’t set right.” (According to CNN, and to a video forensics expert retained by the plaintiffs, the effect was a common compression artifact that happens often in video encoding.)

That’s the allegation against Jones. His defense, meanwhile, argues that while Jones says that Cooper and De La Rosa faked the interview, and provides evidence for that claim that draws upon Jones’s own authority with video production, Jones didn’t intend to speak factually—and, in fact, no reasonable person would expect that Jones spoke factually on his show.

“There can simply be no statement of fact when Mr. Jones views a video of Anderson Cooper and provides his commentary and opinion with regard to possibilities as to why Mr. Cooper’s nose disappeared on the video, all the while directing the viewers’ attention to the very video about which he opined,” a motion to dismiss the suit filed by Jones’s attorney argues. “No reasonable reader or listener would interpret Mr. Jones’ statements regarding the possibility of a ‘blue-screen’ being used as a verifiably false statement of fact, and even if it is verifiable as false, the entire context in which it was made discloses that the statements are mere opinions ‘masquerading as a fact.'”

That may be the best argument available to Jones in defending the suit, but it also puts him once more in a position where his lawyers are arguing in court that the things he says during his broadcasts aren’t true—and, in fact, that any “reasonable reader or listener” would conclude that Jones, when he makes statements like “the green screen isn’t set right,” isn’t speaking factually. If Jones isn’t to be taken seriously when making statements like that, though, it becomes harder to understand what, exactly, Infowars is supposed to be informing its audience of.

The spread of bad information is also at the heart of the other lawsuit against Infowars being heard in Austin this week. This one, filed by a man named Marcel Fontaine, involves a post on the Infowars website that went up shortly after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, this spring. In the post, Infowars writer Kit Daniels published a photo of Fontaine wearing a red t-shirt with caricatures of Communist figures drinking alcohol with the words “Communist Party,” which Daniels, in a court filing, says was obtained from the website 4chan. Infowars’ headline read, “Reported Florida Shooter Dressed as a Communist, Supported ISIS.” It included photos of Nikolas Cruz, the actual shooting suspect, alongside the picture of Fontaine, which appeared on the site above the caption “Shooter is a commie.”

Infowars, in the second suit, is represented by Eric Taube and Kevin Brown. In their motion to dismiss the suit, they explain that “Daniels accurately reported what the 4Chan original poster—and other social media outlets—had reported: that the Challenged Image was that of the Parkland shooter.” The “other social media outlets” included in the defendant’s exhibits are limited to a single tweet from a now-suspended “Antifa” parody account. They also argue that the site never named Fontaine, limiting their liability in the case.

In response to the motion to dismiss—which also asks that Fontaine pay $29,037 in legal feels to Infowars’ attorneys—Bankston argues that Infowars, if it seeks protections as a media organization, has a responsibility to meet standards of diligence exercised by other media companies. “For Infowars, the prospect of publishing of an image of the Parkland shooter wearing a communist-themed t-shirt was so tantalizing that it used Plaintiff’s picture despite knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.” To support that argument, they note that Infowars never cited any of its sources—which means that users familiar with 4chan’s history of spreading misinformation around mass shootings, or of the parody account’s purpose, would have to identify that the sourcing was less than credible on their own. If that were considered a reasonable journalism practice, the response argues, “There would be nothing to stop an Infowars writer from submitting his own anonymous message to 4chan and then republishing that statement to millions with no attribution.”

The response goes on to note that, had Infowars run a reverse-image search on the photo, they’d have learned that it was a photo of Fontaine, not of Nikolas Cruz—and that the defense that they didn’t identify Fontaine by name is irrelevant, since those tools are widely available, and Infowars readers were thus able to obtain that same information. Fontaine, in an affidavit, says that the result of that has been harassment similar to what the Pozner family faced. “I’ve seen hundreds of violent, hateful messages posted online. I have seen messages from people wishing me dead even after being told of my real identity. And I’ve personally been sent violent and harassing messages which continued even weeks later, including a threat which referenced my place of employment,” he says, adding that “he’s terrified that Infowars fans may come to similar conclusions” that he’s “part of a conspiracy to stage the Florida shooting.”

There are plenty of ethical questions worth asking about Infowars with regard to these cases. Chief among them: does a media company that spreads inaccurate information, without citing its sources or attempting to run basic diligence (like reverse image searches), about private citizens like Fontaine bear responsibility for threats made by its readers?

But the ethical questions aren’t what’s being heard this week in Travis County—rather, it’ll be specific legal issues around defamation. In a court, those determinations are complicated, rooted in precedent, and involve questions thornier than just whether Infowars’ approach to media is ethical or not. But regardless of what happens in these preliminary hearings—which, if the case proceeds, could be followed by jury trials or settlements—they’re not the end of Infowars’ legal woes. There are three more defamation suits, including another in Travis County filed by a Sandy Hook parent represented by Bankston, which will receive its first hearing in September, as well as another in Connecticut, and one in Charlottesville, Virginia, related to reports from Infowars after a neo-Nazi march in the city last June. If these filings are any indication, Jones’s attorneys will have to rely on a number of different arguments to defend the suits—and those defenses could serve to undermine Jones’s mission, too.

https://www.polanimal.com.au/posting.php?mode=reply&f=5&t=4786
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5523
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby mothra » 07 Aug 2018, 12:26

User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5523
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby HBS Guy » 07 Aug 2018, 12:52

Fancy saying those kids killed didn’t exist!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49994
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby johnsmith » 07 Aug 2018, 14:48

mothra wrote:No Reasonable Person Would Believe What He Says


pretty much confirms that moronic isn't reasonable :clap
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 6871
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby mothra » 07 Aug 2018, 21:51

Alex Jones Begs Donald Trump For Help After He's Dumped By YouTube, Spotify And Facebook

The notorious conspiracy theorist suggests Trump make his media problems a major issue in the 2018 campaign.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5523
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby mothra » 10 Aug 2018, 11:07

This is how low this guy goes:


Alex Jones' Lawyer Seeks To Make Sandy Hook Parents' Home Addresses Public
“They’re using an old, outdated law to intimidate these people and it’s just sick,” said Mark Bankston, a lawyer for the parents.

When radio host Alex Jones published a video in 2017 titled “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed,” the parents of a little boy killed in the Sandy Hook shooting bought security alarms for their homes, fearful that they would once again be harassed by Jones’ legion of followers convinced the shooting never happened.

Now a lawyer for Jones wants to make the parents’ home addresses public.

Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa lost 6-year-old Noah in 2012 when a gunman stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 20 children and six adults. More than five years later, they still get harassed by conspiracy theorists claiming the shooting was all a hoax.

Their harassment has led to a defamation lawsuit against Jones, who has fueled the conspiracy fires for years by claiming interviews with the parents and media outlets were faked and that the shooting may have never happened. A Texas judge is currently reviewing whether Jones’ motion to dismiss the case has any merit. In the meantime, Jones’ lawyer is seeking to open the floodgates for dangerous parties to easily find the Sandy Hook parents.

In new court filings obtained by HuffPost, Pozner and De La Rosa, who live separately, describe the steps they took in the wake of Jones reigniting the hoax theory. The two purchased a privacy protection plan for their computers and a pair of motion detection alarms for their homes.

“Sometimes I lie awake at night worrying that despite our efforts at security, a determined conspiracy fanatic might gain entry to our home,” De La Rosa said in a court declaration.

They’re using an old, outdated law to intimidate these people and it’s just sick.
Attorney Mark Bankston, who is representing the Sandy Hook parents
The parents have also paid a small fortune in grief counseling because of Jones, they said.

“Due to Mr. Jones’ broadcast, I have also suffered severe emotional distress and trauma which I cannot even begin to adequately describe,” Pozner said in his declaration. “No human being should ever be asked to suffer through the torment Mr. Jones carried out.”

In an objection, lawyer Mark Enoch, who is representing Jones in the defamation case, said the declarations should be thrown out if the parents don’t provide their dates of birth and addresses.

“The declarations filed by Plaintiffs are neither affidavits nor are they proper declarations,” Enoch’s objection says, citing a Texas law that he says requires them to provide personal information.

But lawyer Mark Bankston, who is representing the parents, cited nearly a dozen legal opinions and cases that seem likely to defeat Enoch’s objection. In his own filing, Bankston has demanded Enoch withdraw the objection.

“There are obvious reasons why these Plaintiffs are extraordinarily hesitant about filing public documents containing their personal information, such as their address or date of birth, and they will not publish that information absent a legal obligation to do so,” Bankston’s response reads. “Information such as date of birth, addresses, etc., have been used in the past by InfoWars followers to locate and harass the Plaintiffs.”

Bankston told HuffPost that Enoch’s filing is at best “tone deaf.”

“They’re using an old, outdated law to intimidate these people and it’s just sick,” he said.

The defamation lawsuit is one of many Jones is currently fighting. Bankston is also representing Sandy Hook father Neil Heslin in a defamation lawsuit against Jones. And in a separate defamation suit against the Infowars host, Bankston is representing a man whom Infowars falsely identified as the Parkland, Florida, school shooter.

Other defamation suits levied against Jones include one from six Sandy Hook parents and an FBI agent who responded to the shooting, and one brought by a man who filmed the violent vehicular attack that killed 32-year-old Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Virginia, during a white supremacist rally last summer. Jones called the man who filmed the attack a “deep state shill” and a “CIA asset.” (He’s not.)

Jones is also likely to see his revenue plummet after being dumped by YouTube, Spotify and Facebook this week. In a typically incoherent rant, Jones blamed a “globalist conspiracy” for silencing his hate speech and harassment, and asked that President Donald Trump help him get back on social media platforms.

Enoch, for his part, would not defend his newly filed objection to HuffPost when reached by phone Wednesday.

“I have no comment,” Enoch said. “The statute said what it said.”

When asked if he understood how this could further damage the lives of the parents, Enoch hung up.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/alex-jones-lawyer-sandy-hook-parents-addresses_us_5b6b036be4b0b15abaa940a3
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5523
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby HBS Guy » 10 Aug 2018, 12:02

Charming fellows!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 49994
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Alex Jones Pursued Over Infowars Falsehoods

Postby pinkeye » 11 Aug 2018, 01:29

all major symptoms of a society crashing

such is obvious, is it not?
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 21:59
spamone: Animal


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aussie, Bing [Bot], hatty, johnsmith and 1 guest