He absolutely has not apologized for everything he put those families through. Had he done so, he almost certainly wouldn’t have been hit with the biggest defamation judgment in American history. He’s a monster
He absolutely has not apologized for everything he put those families through. Had he done so, he almost certainly wouldn’t have been hit with the biggest defamation judgment in American history. He’s a monster
How much is an apology worth anyway after he motivated hordes of his deranged followers to harass these grieving parents, forcing some to move from their homes? There ARE unforgivable acts for which an “apology” serves only as an added insult.
He “apologized” in the most perfunctory ass-covering way (which turned out to be far far too late legally speaking) and since then when asked about it has continued to say he has “questions” about the Sandy Hook shooting, which to everyone other than his brain dead followers clearly indicates he still believes all the bullshit that has him on the hook for over $1 billion
If he apologizes, he's attacked for his apology being too-little-too-late (or insincere) and if he doesn't apologize, he's probably still attacked for not apologizing ... so what's he supposed to do on the apology question? It seems to me it doesn't matter if he apologizes or not. The solution is to be able to sue people who caused harm to others in a court of law - which happened.
But I can't sue anyone who forced me to get a vaccine shot I didn't want and that may kill me or harm me ... or cause me to lose my job or not be able to go to a restaurant or play. Can I sue the government .... or Pfizer or Moderna? No. On Facebook, I can't even say what I think about dangerous shots and unconstitutional mandates ... I can't sue Facebook and they ignore my "appeals' of my posting bans.
He didn’t apologize Bill. Not for what he actually did. He’s a bullshiter addicted to spewing bullshit (among other, more chemical addictions) and so at one point in his firehouse of nonsense he may have uttered something like “I’m sorry to the families at Sandy Hook,” but that’s nothing compared to his continued actions. It’s like Kanye going around saying heinous things about Jewish people, then when he has an album coming out dropping the blandest, most perfunctory apology statement on Instagram and then proceeding to keep saying insane things about Jewish folks. If you accept their “apologies” in either case, you need your head examined or your reasoning is motivated (i.e. you’re just a big fan of the guy)
I'd argue the system or free market worked as well as it could in the Sandy Hook/Jones story. Someone like Alex Jones would now have to be really crazy to advance some narrative about a school shooting or mass murder they claim didn't happen. We now see if this happens, such a media person is going to have to pay huge legal defense bills, will be widely discredited and will be forced to pay judgements that cause them to declare bankruptcy. If you want to advance these theories and are glad to take on all this professional and personal blowback/consequences, you are a nutcase.
My one concern about the judgement is the possible slippery-slope logic that a media personality will be held liable for the actions of his/her listeners/readers. If I understand the case (which I didn't follow closely), the argument is that many of Jones' listeners later harassed and upset the families of the victims (which I'm sure happened).
So it seems that any person (myself included) could be blamed if one of my readers "harassed" some group of people based on some (probably false) interpretation of one of my articles.
The argument is you are encouraging dangerous "extremists" and thus should be censored (or sued). If this new legal standard takes hold, it will have a silencing effect on fair and vital criticism of all possible false narratives. In fact, I think this is the goal of those who created and are now expanding the Censorship Industrial Complex.
They are labeling fair criticism, "extremist" or "disinformation" content ... which can be censored ... even in the supposed "land of the free." Basically, are we free to say what we think or not? Or: We can say what we want ... if our views are "approved" by some self-appointed arbiter of the truth.
He's a monster who didn't kill anyone though. Compare him to the monsters who ordered hundreds of millions of people to get toxic and deadly non-vaccines they didn't need.
What about the "monsters" who ordered troops to go to war (and get killed or maimed for life) and kill innocent children and mothers under bogus pretenses (like "They have weapons of mass destruction!")
Are you for banning all the people who enthusiastically supported those wars from ever hosting a talk show? Have they apologized to the mother in Iraq whose child was blown to bits?
I'm throwing out the possibility you may condone some monsters and want vengence for others. As you note, Jones was punished in court.
I don't think any of the neocon talk show hosts ever had to pay any kind of civil judgement or go through any kind of trial.
P.S. He did apologize and he was still given that judgement.
I’m sorry, is your defense of Alex Jones’s credibility that he hasn’t killed millions of people? Good luck with that one buddy, and I hope you’re not in charge of operating any heavy machinery or anything g I. The future
I think he's saying that the level of ire commonly aimed at Jones is incommensurate and inconsistent given that the people who usually wield it do not also aim it at the (softer-spoken, more educated, higher-class) pundits who, e.g. pushed propaganda supporting the invasion of Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis and created ISIS - some of whom no doubt still have jobs in media. It's whataboutism, BUT, it's also a fair question. Could you feel the same ire for Judith Miller? If not, why not? Is there an element of class, or culture, in play?
Are a lot of people still claiming to be big fans of Judith Miller and supporting her as she continues to lie about every subject under the sun? Does Judith Miller have tons of people hanging on her every word as a supposed brave truth teller saying the things that THEY don’t want you to hear? I’ll grant you that her shoddy reporting had far more calamitous effects in a global sense than Jones making life pure hell for a handful of Sandy Hook families for years, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time and so I have no problem saying Fuck Alex Jones and Fuck the people who cover for him
My "defense" of Alex Jones is simply that he should not be banned from hosting a podcast show. I'm trying to make the point that far worse monsters than Jones are allowed to keep doing their shows despite pushing views I'd label as sociopathic and sadistic.
I don't have a problem with anyone questioning his credibility. I can question the "credibility" of thousands of pundits and show hosts. Jones' batting average on true statements is probably far better than most hosts in the mainstream media.
Keep moving those goalposts buddy! Please point out where I said he shouldn’t be allowed to host a “podcast show.” He’s free to do whatever his hateful, bigoted heart desires within the boundaries of the law (which, oops, doesn’t include defaming grieving families and doubling down at every turn when called to account!)
Okay. We're good then. The author of this story seems to be making the point that Jones shouldn't be allowed to have a show. Or, he can have a show, but he doesn't want any guests to go on the show ... which makes it hard to do a show.
I think Jesse’s piece speaks for itself, but you know nobody is OWED a big platform right? Jones can go rant on a street corner (which is where his trash belongs), we don’t have to give him a megaphone. If your claim is that he’s a voice who DESERVES to have a big platform then I think you’re too far gone to have a reasonable discussion
I'm not saying Jones "deserves" a big platform. But he deserves the right to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants to be on his show. If he gets a big platform or audience, that's the free market at work.
What scares me is "the truth Gestapo" bullying the masses into not watching certain shows ... or that certain topics and guests are off limits.
Which is what's happening on a massive scale in America right now. I don't know if this trend disturbs Jesse or not. If it doesn't, it should.
Jones should be free to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants. Every invitee should decline those invites, and nobody should watch his show. How's that?
I don't like it. I think he was completely and shockingly wrong on the school shooting wacko theory ... but if he invited me on his show to talk about my areas of interests, I'd quickly accept with gratitude.
I'm trying to reach a much larger audience with my own taboo theory (the Covid virus was spreading months before our authorities said was possible). I can't get hardly anyone to consider this theory or allow me to present the evidence I've compiled.
He's the type person who might allow a contrarian like me to present my research.
I'd relish an invite from CNN or MSNBC to discuss this subject, but I know that's not happening.
Lots of people who watch his show are not wackos and don't subscribe to his views on the school shooting. I think he just got re-instated on X - which actually made a great statement for free speech.
We don't have a First Amendment to protect the speech of people who only spout the authorized narratives.
Going on InfoWars isn't exactly going to bolster the credibility of any independent investigative reporting - in fact the opposite is true. People will say "it must be false because it's coming from the same show that peddled wacko theories about false flag school shootings and harassed grieving parents".
Why on earth would CNN or MSNBC have some rando on to spout their pet theory? Why would you assume that They are just too scared to hear your bold ideas and not “oh, who the hell this this guy and why should we care what he has to say about this extremely specialized subject matter?” Are you a researcher? A doctor? Are you published on this particular issue? If not, then why the hell should anyone care what you personally think about when the coronavirus began?
He absolutely has not apologized for everything he put those families through. Had he done so, he almost certainly wouldn’t have been hit with the biggest defamation judgment in American history. He’s a monster
How much is an apology worth anyway after he motivated hordes of his deranged followers to harass these grieving parents, forcing some to move from their homes? There ARE unforgivable acts for which an “apology” serves only as an added insult.
He “apologized” in the most perfunctory ass-covering way (which turned out to be far far too late legally speaking) and since then when asked about it has continued to say he has “questions” about the Sandy Hook shooting, which to everyone other than his brain dead followers clearly indicates he still believes all the bullshit that has him on the hook for over $1 billion
If he apologizes, he's attacked for his apology being too-little-too-late (or insincere) and if he doesn't apologize, he's probably still attacked for not apologizing ... so what's he supposed to do on the apology question? It seems to me it doesn't matter if he apologizes or not. The solution is to be able to sue people who caused harm to others in a court of law - which happened.
But I can't sue anyone who forced me to get a vaccine shot I didn't want and that may kill me or harm me ... or cause me to lose my job or not be able to go to a restaurant or play. Can I sue the government .... or Pfizer or Moderna? No. On Facebook, I can't even say what I think about dangerous shots and unconstitutional mandates ... I can't sue Facebook and they ignore my "appeals' of my posting bans.
He didn’t apologize Bill. Not for what he actually did. He’s a bullshiter addicted to spewing bullshit (among other, more chemical addictions) and so at one point in his firehouse of nonsense he may have uttered something like “I’m sorry to the families at Sandy Hook,” but that’s nothing compared to his continued actions. It’s like Kanye going around saying heinous things about Jewish people, then when he has an album coming out dropping the blandest, most perfunctory apology statement on Instagram and then proceeding to keep saying insane things about Jewish folks. If you accept their “apologies” in either case, you need your head examined or your reasoning is motivated (i.e. you’re just a big fan of the guy)
I'd argue the system or free market worked as well as it could in the Sandy Hook/Jones story. Someone like Alex Jones would now have to be really crazy to advance some narrative about a school shooting or mass murder they claim didn't happen. We now see if this happens, such a media person is going to have to pay huge legal defense bills, will be widely discredited and will be forced to pay judgements that cause them to declare bankruptcy. If you want to advance these theories and are glad to take on all this professional and personal blowback/consequences, you are a nutcase.
My one concern about the judgement is the possible slippery-slope logic that a media personality will be held liable for the actions of his/her listeners/readers. If I understand the case (which I didn't follow closely), the argument is that many of Jones' listeners later harassed and upset the families of the victims (which I'm sure happened).
So it seems that any person (myself included) could be blamed if one of my readers "harassed" some group of people based on some (probably false) interpretation of one of my articles.
The argument is you are encouraging dangerous "extremists" and thus should be censored (or sued). If this new legal standard takes hold, it will have a silencing effect on fair and vital criticism of all possible false narratives. In fact, I think this is the goal of those who created and are now expanding the Censorship Industrial Complex.
They are labeling fair criticism, "extremist" or "disinformation" content ... which can be censored ... even in the supposed "land of the free." Basically, are we free to say what we think or not? Or: We can say what we want ... if our views are "approved" by some self-appointed arbiter of the truth.
He's a monster who didn't kill anyone though. Compare him to the monsters who ordered hundreds of millions of people to get toxic and deadly non-vaccines they didn't need.
What about the "monsters" who ordered troops to go to war (and get killed or maimed for life) and kill innocent children and mothers under bogus pretenses (like "They have weapons of mass destruction!")
Are you for banning all the people who enthusiastically supported those wars from ever hosting a talk show? Have they apologized to the mother in Iraq whose child was blown to bits?
I'm throwing out the possibility you may condone some monsters and want vengence for others. As you note, Jones was punished in court.
I don't think any of the neocon talk show hosts ever had to pay any kind of civil judgement or go through any kind of trial.
P.S. He did apologize and he was still given that judgement.
I’m sorry, is your defense of Alex Jones’s credibility that he hasn’t killed millions of people? Good luck with that one buddy, and I hope you’re not in charge of operating any heavy machinery or anything g I. The future
I think he's saying that the level of ire commonly aimed at Jones is incommensurate and inconsistent given that the people who usually wield it do not also aim it at the (softer-spoken, more educated, higher-class) pundits who, e.g. pushed propaganda supporting the invasion of Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis and created ISIS - some of whom no doubt still have jobs in media. It's whataboutism, BUT, it's also a fair question. Could you feel the same ire for Judith Miller? If not, why not? Is there an element of class, or culture, in play?
Are a lot of people still claiming to be big fans of Judith Miller and supporting her as she continues to lie about every subject under the sun? Does Judith Miller have tons of people hanging on her every word as a supposed brave truth teller saying the things that THEY don’t want you to hear? I’ll grant you that her shoddy reporting had far more calamitous effects in a global sense than Jones making life pure hell for a handful of Sandy Hook families for years, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time and so I have no problem saying Fuck Alex Jones and Fuck the people who cover for him
It is "whataboutism" but sometimes the "what about?" questions are germane to the topic. It is here (imo).
My "defense" of Alex Jones is simply that he should not be banned from hosting a podcast show. I'm trying to make the point that far worse monsters than Jones are allowed to keep doing their shows despite pushing views I'd label as sociopathic and sadistic.
I don't have a problem with anyone questioning his credibility. I can question the "credibility" of thousands of pundits and show hosts. Jones' batting average on true statements is probably far better than most hosts in the mainstream media.
Keep moving those goalposts buddy! Please point out where I said he shouldn’t be allowed to host a “podcast show.” He’s free to do whatever his hateful, bigoted heart desires within the boundaries of the law (which, oops, doesn’t include defaming grieving families and doubling down at every turn when called to account!)
Okay. We're good then. The author of this story seems to be making the point that Jones shouldn't be allowed to have a show. Or, he can have a show, but he doesn't want any guests to go on the show ... which makes it hard to do a show.
I think Jesse’s piece speaks for itself, but you know nobody is OWED a big platform right? Jones can go rant on a street corner (which is where his trash belongs), we don’t have to give him a megaphone. If your claim is that he’s a voice who DESERVES to have a big platform then I think you’re too far gone to have a reasonable discussion
I'm not saying Jones "deserves" a big platform. But he deserves the right to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants to be on his show. If he gets a big platform or audience, that's the free market at work.
What scares me is "the truth Gestapo" bullying the masses into not watching certain shows ... or that certain topics and guests are off limits.
Which is what's happening on a massive scale in America right now. I don't know if this trend disturbs Jesse or not. If it doesn't, it should.
Jones should be free to have a show and invite whatever guests he wants. Every invitee should decline those invites, and nobody should watch his show. How's that?
I don't like it. I think he was completely and shockingly wrong on the school shooting wacko theory ... but if he invited me on his show to talk about my areas of interests, I'd quickly accept with gratitude.
I'm trying to reach a much larger audience with my own taboo theory (the Covid virus was spreading months before our authorities said was possible). I can't get hardly anyone to consider this theory or allow me to present the evidence I've compiled.
He's the type person who might allow a contrarian like me to present my research.
I'd relish an invite from CNN or MSNBC to discuss this subject, but I know that's not happening.
Lots of people who watch his show are not wackos and don't subscribe to his views on the school shooting. I think he just got re-instated on X - which actually made a great statement for free speech.
We don't have a First Amendment to protect the speech of people who only spout the authorized narratives.
Going on InfoWars isn't exactly going to bolster the credibility of any independent investigative reporting - in fact the opposite is true. People will say "it must be false because it's coming from the same show that peddled wacko theories about false flag school shootings and harassed grieving parents".
Why on earth would CNN or MSNBC have some rando on to spout their pet theory? Why would you assume that They are just too scared to hear your bold ideas and not “oh, who the hell this this guy and why should we care what he has to say about this extremely specialized subject matter?” Are you a researcher? A doctor? Are you published on this particular issue? If not, then why the hell should anyone care what you personally think about when the coronavirus began?