@techsouth saidNow your just rambling. Your wrong the Alex Jones trial was nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with incitement to hatred of specific individuals and politically motivated in so far as the gun lobby is a organised political entity.
Earlier I was ridiculed by someone else with the following:
Person X is responsible for giving person Y cause to believe that person Z warranted or somehow deserved the punishment that person Y inflicted upon person Z
It’s not really rocket science is it?
I brought up one challenging example. I could bring up many others. Almost every public figure receives ...[text shortened]... being indiscriminatingly shot by police? Is there a secret stat page that we don't have access to?
They were not public figures they were the parents of children who were murdered by a madman who was able to get access to a gun and kill lots of children.
Your defence of Alex Jones is needless, pointless and sadistic given that the parents themselves fought this case rather than an overbearing government.
@kevcvs57 saidI have neither made this about free speech nor about defending Alex Jones. I've expressed no sympathy for Alex Jones nor offered any defense of his actions. I have entered this conversation on the basis of challenging the consistency of standards applied to this case versus many potential others.
Now your just rambling. Your wrong the Alex Jones trial was nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with incitement to hatred of specific individuals and politically motivated in so far as the gun lobby is a organised political entity.
They were not public figures they were the parents of children who were murdered by a madman who was able to get access to a gun ...[text shortened]... d sadistic given that the parents themselves fought this case rather than an overbearing government.
Perhaps what you call "rambling" is actually nuance that is important to the conversation. If you aren't interested in that and rather stick to just a few clumsy talking points, I understand.
1 edit
@techsouth saidBut there is no nuance, it’s an open and shut case. If you have an example that even begins to approach a hate jockey targeting the parents of murdered children as part of his puerile business model with the consequence that many of his retarded listeners actively harassed and put these grieving parents in fear of their lives then please feel free to present it but the most you’ll get from me is the concession that the victims in your example should also have had a path to some kind of justice within the system. But not that Jones was erroneously or harshly dealt with.
I have neither made this about free speech nor about defending Alex Jones. I've expressed no sympathy for Alex Jones nor offered any defense of his actions. I have entered this conversation on the basis of challenging the consistency of standards applied to this case versus many potential others.
Perhaps what you call "rambling" is actually nuance that is important to ...[text shortened]... If you aren't interested in that and rather stick to just a few clumsy talking points, I understand.
@athousandyoung saidWhat is disputed is whether or not fentanyl killed him.
It is absolutely disputed that he had enough fentanyl in his system to kill him!
What is not disputed is that he had enough that it could have killed him.
Still, that is a very minor point to quibble about. What I am not finding is this thread is any attempt to judge cases with a consistent set of standards.
For example, I earlier brought up the 5 Dallas police officers who were executed based on the belief that police officers were widely believed to be wantonly killing black men. The fact that it isn't true doesn't matter in this case because the opinion is widely held. Isn't it also the case that George Floyd dying of fentanyl is widely held (even if it isn't true)?
Consider just these two cases:
1. Politicians and journalists widely accuse police officers in general of wantonly killing black men. Result, 5 Dallas police officers are executed by someone who believed that lie. No politician nor journalist faces even the slightest consequence for their agitation.
2. Kanye states George Floyd died of Fentanyl. There is no monetary damage to his family, no death threats against them are mentioned, and whether or not GF died from fentanyl or from the knee of a police officer has absolutely no bearing on the goodness of GF's reputation.
Does everyone here see just how glaring these double standards are?
1 edit
@techsouth saidIn your first case there is no core defendant and no core victim perhaps the police federation or a relative of a dead policeman should have selected a high profile accuser of the police to bring their civil case against.
What is disputed is whether or not fentanyl killed him.
What is not disputed is that he had enough that it could have killed him.
Still, that is a very minor point to quibble about. What I am not finding is this thread is any attempt to judge cases with a consistent set of standards.
For example, I earlier brought up the 5 Dallas police officers who were ex ...[text shortened]... goodness of GF's reputation.
Does everyone here see just how glaring these double standards are?
In your second case there is no impediment to G Floyds family from suing this multi billionaire for defamation of their dead relative.
You do realise that the victims of Jones defamation brought the case themselves in a civil court?
@kevcvs57 saidOf course. We can all file lawsuits with whatever legal funds we have to utilize.
In your first case there is no core defendant and no core victim perhaps the police federation or a relative of a dead policeman should have selected a high profile accuser of the police to bring their civil case against.
In your second case there is no impediment to G Floyds family from suing this multi billionaire for defamation of their dead relative.
You do realise that the victims of Jones defamation brought the case themselves in a civil court?
This thread doesn't seem to be about that. If that is the most profound point we can attain, I don't see why we bother to post anything.
The prevailing sentiment on this thread seems to be "$1 billion. Good verdict!!!". Am I wrong about that?
I'm not here to defend Alex Jones.
But to all those here, what opinion would you have about potential other lawsuits? If Lebron James had been sued after death threats emerged against the Ohio police officer, would you support a $1 billion lawsuit there too?
Or, what if the families of the 5 Dallas police officers had sued several prominent politicians or journalists? Would you cheer for them to win $1 billion too?
Or consider Nick Sandman who was slandered by several media outlets (and would later receive death threats even though he had not been a public figure before that). He actually did file lawsuits. Although he settled with two outlets, the others were dismissed. Do you feel the judge was wrong to dismiss his lawsuits?
There are potentially thousands of defamation cases, all of which will differ in at least some small way. But we ought to seek to judge them fairly and consistently. We can always support the cases we like because they favor our own political leanings and then find some trivial difference with other cases and say "they're not the same because of this trivial reason". It takes a lot more mental discipline to judge cases consistently and also not create a precedent that results in absurdities when applied more broadly.
I don't know how the George Floyd case will turn out, but they way I'm seeing it Kanye did not even defame George Floyd. The only damage he may have done is that by sharing his opinion it might result in someone, somewhere of not hating Derrick Chauvin as much. Can anyone explain to me exactly how GF was defamed here?
2 edits
@techsouth saidWell that’s the whole point the reason people are cheering this is because jones is a disgusting weasel who has been polluting the airwaves for years and he picked on the parents of dead children not a massive well armed police force, I’m not going to address your list of supposed relative examples but your not addressing the point that the defamed relatives brought this case to seek justice and clear their names, one woman was accused of beings crises actor working for the gun control lobby in her local supermarket.
Of course. We can all file lawsuits with whatever legal funds we have to utilize.
This thread doesn't seem to be about that. If that is the most profound point we can attain, I don't see why we bother to post anything.
The prevailing sentiment on this thread seems to be "$1 billion. Good verdict!!!". Am I wrong about that?
I'm not here to defend Alex Jones.
...[text shortened]... re of not hating Derrick Chauvin as much. Can anyone explain to me exactly how GF was defamed here?
The one billion is a fantasy figure that jones doesn’t have and the families will never see but justice as ever has a deterrent aspect like when supporters of the death penalty claim it has a deterrent effect.
This was not a deluded it angry and confused individual making claims about a government body this was jones cynically making the lives of the parents of murdered children more of a living hell than it already was as part of his business model, people are cheering in the hope that this award is a nail in the coffin of that model.
@techsouth said
What is disputed is whether or not fentanyl killed him.
What is not disputed is that he had enough that it could have killed him.
Still, that is a very minor point to quibble about. What I am not finding is this thread is any attempt to judge cases with a consistent set of standards.
For example, I earlier brought up the 5 Dallas police officers who were ex ...[text shortened]... goodness of GF's reputation.
Does everyone here see just how glaring these double standards are?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/21/fact-check-george-floyd-autopsy-ruled-his-death-homicide/7317557002/
While findings from Floyd's autopsy revealed 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl in his blood, medical experts called as prosecution witnesses agreed the amount of fentanyl was not enough to be considered fatal.
@kevcvs57 saidIf you didn't want to discuss comparisons of this case with others, you could have said so in the beginning.
Well that’s the whole point the reason people are cheering this is because jones is a disgusting weasel who has been polluting the airwaves for years and he picked on the parents of dead children not a massive well armed police force, I’m not going to address your list of supposed relative examples but your not addressing the point that the defamed relatives brought this ca ...[text shortened]... siness model, people are cheering in the hope that this award is a nail in the coffin of that model.
All that is left is a binary question. Do you like this verdict (A) = Yes, (B) = No.
Your answer is "A". Got it. Glad to have had this stimulating conversation. I always find some of the most profound levels of thinking here on RHP.
@athousandyoung saidA "fact check" from USA Today. Well, we can be sure they'd never bow to social pressure.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/21/fact-check-george-floyd-autopsy-ruled-his-death-homicide/7317557002/
While findings from Floyd's autopsy revealed 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl in his blood, medical experts called as prosecution witnesses agreed the amount of fentanyl was not enough to be considered fatal.
Here's a more generic link: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fentanyl_en#:~:text=The%20estimated%20lethal%20dose%20of,poly%2Dsubstance%20use%20was%20involved.
Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities where poly-substance use was involved.
Floyd had a concentration that could have been fatal. I'm not saying that Fentanyl is what killed him.
@techsouth saidIt’s because you keep insisting on comparing apples and oranges. The award was given by a jury who came to this conclusion.
That's where I stopped reading.
I have been, over and over, trying to discuss consistency of this case in regards to other [potential] cases.
There can be no consistency between a bunch of civil cases that bear no actual similarity and it’s pretty obvious that your using the unicorn of consistency to demerit the case against jones who you keep insisting that you have no love for but clearly your feelings toward him are at the very least ‘complicated’.
@techsouth saidLol you want to compare the inconsistencies between this actual case and potential cases, you surely know that’s a little bit of a surreal statement.
A "fact check" from USA Today. Well, we can be sure they'd never bow to social pressure.
Here's a more generic link: https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fentanyl_en#:~:text=The%20estimated%20lethal%20dose%20of,poly%2Dsubstance%20use%20was%20involved.
[i]Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities ...[text shortened]... yd had a concentration that could have been fatal. I'm not saying that Fentanyl is what killed him.
@kevcvs57 saidWow! A total stranger online has somehow managed to read my mind again!!!
It’s because you keep insisting on comparing apples and oranges. The award was given by a jury who came to this conclusion.
There can be no consistency between a bunch of civil cases that bear no actual similarity and it’s pretty obvious that your using the unicorn of consistency to demerit the case against jones who you keep insisting that you have no love for but clearly your feelings toward him are at the very least ‘complicated’.
I only think in black and white and was trying to pretend like I occasionally see shades of gray.
I'm busted.
You win this round. Maybe I can pull off the charade in another thread. But it will be hard to slip it by when people here can read my true thoughts and tell me what they are.
Yeah, the Alex Jones case is one of a kind. I didn't watch any of the trial, but I'm sure since this case is so unique that no lawyer even tried to utilize precedent to make a point. After all, Alex is scum and that is unprecedented. And no lawyer in the future will ever try to use this case as precedent. It will be unanimously agreed in all future cases the defendant is not as bad as Alex Jones.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@techsouth saidGosh. If only you Qanoners weren't as transparent as a freshly washed bottle with nothing in it, that wouldn't happen again and again and again.
Wow! A total stranger online has somehow managed to read my mind again!!!