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.
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.
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.