I posted a video in another thread yesterday in which two YouTube lawyers critique the outcome of the Alex Jones trial in Connecticut. I have since reviewed the video again in order to jot up some notes describing problems with the trial. The essence of the lawyers’ critique seems to me (inexpertly) to revolve around the application of anti-SLAPP law.
SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation:
SLAPPs have become an all-too-common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings.
Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. In terms of reporting, news organizations and individual journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by a subject of an enterprise or investigative story.
Under most anti-SLAPP statutes, the person sued makes a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then has the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail in the suit — meaning they must show that they have evidence that could result in a favorable verdict. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden and the suit is dismissed through anti-SLAPP proceedings, many statutes allow defendants to collect attorney’s fees from the plaintiff.
With SLAPP in mind, here are some of the notes I jotted up to capture criticisms the video lawyers make:
Due process irregularities:
Applicable “anti-SLAPP” laws were not enforced by the judge. In particular, the defendant was not allowed to offer a defense based on the 1st Amendment.
The defendant twice moved to “remove jurisdiction” from Connecticut and have the case tried in Federal court but the Federal court declined both times for unusual and spurious reasons.
The defendant was required to complete discovery before being allowed to submit a motion to dismiss.
In discovery the defendant had to produce information he did not create, did not possess, and did not act upon. Plus, the order to produce was excessively broad and egregious because it required the defendant to produce immaterial information.
Legal issues:
Prosecution did not meet the legal standards for defamation. For example:
- To prove defamation, the prosecution must show that a specific factual statement was made about a specific, identified person. This never occurred in the Connecticut trial (or in Alex Jones’ real life).
- Commercial practices have never before been used as evidence to support a defamation claim This is because defamation cannot derive from a commercial practice; it can only derive from speech.
From the YouTube video transcript (at 40:08):
The core of the [prosecution] theory was that Alex Jones was the originator the instigator and basically sole source of people who doubted whether Sandy Hook occurred, number one; number two that Alex Jones had set people up to harass people’s families homes; number three that he became famous and made all of his money solely based on Sandy Hook.
The problem is they knew — the plaintiff’s lawyers knew — that was a lie.
[It was a lie because there were millions of other originators of doubt about Sandy Hook on the Internet; there was no evidence that Jones incited harassment of anyone; Jones made money in many ways that had nothing to do with Sandy Hook.]
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Making questionable legal excuses for someone dancing on children’s graves.
The defamation was proven at trial. Period. The jury decided as such. That’s how these things work.
If there are any true legal irregularities, they will be found on appeal. But my understanding is that Jones is not appealing the verdict, just the amount he has been ordered to pay.
As far as Jones’ civil rights go, he forfeited those when he pushed the false narrative of a red flag operation and crisis actors.
“It was a lie because there were millions of other originators of doubt about Sandy Hook on the Internet”
How many of those MILLIONS used Jones as a basis for their own idiocy? It was shown in testimony that the sheer numbers of people who listened to Jones was enough to prove his MAJOR participation in the defamation of those families and children.
“Jones made money in many ways that had nothing to do with Sandy Hook”
\He used his pulpit to spread the defamation which led to his having a larger audience to peddle his wares. It’s a straight line that you and your YouTube lawyers are trying to smear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The defamation was proven at trial. Period. The jury decided as such. That’s how these things work.”
That’s the process. It doesn’t mean that defamation was proved. Indeed, the lawyers in the video argue that it wasn’t.
RE: “As far as Jones’ civil rights go, he forfeited those when he pushed the false narrative of a red flag operation and crisis actors.”
That’s a notion I cannot support. It is the logic of witch hunters.
RE: “He used his pulpit to spread the defamation which led to his having a larger audience to peddle his wares.”
This another example of witch hunting logic.As stated: “defamation cannot derive from a commercial practice; it can only derive from speech.”
LikeLike
” It doesn’t mean that defamation was proved”
Must have been one of Don’s urban juries.
And your “witch hunting logic” only applies to those you support or admire. Any once else can be damned.
LikeLike
“ Jones made money in many ways that had nothing to do with Sandy Hook.”
By keeping Sandy Hook in the false flag mode, Jones kept an audience watching him. Selling goods is much more effective with eyeballs than being ignored.
Jones may not like the judgement, but then people who had to move to another home because of harassment, death threats had a case.
The plaintiffs were not celebrities or political figures, so slander gets less protection.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “By keeping Sandy Hook in the false flag mode, Jones kept an audience watching him. Selling goods is much more effective with eyeballs than being ignored.”
That sounds dubious to me. Do you have a ratio we can use to separate Jones’ Sandy Hook profits from his 9/11 profits?
LikeLike
No. He has no such ratio. Only a giant hole in his position.
LikeLike
Sprinkler!
Maybe you can do the research that John is asking for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE needn’t bother. My question was somewhat facetious. Have you ever read The Merchant of Venice?
LikeLike
I swear, the Sprinkler and the king of counter-factualism are one in the same.
LikeLike
“Do you have a ratio we can use to separate Jones’ Sandy Hook profits from his 9/11 profits?”
No, I will let you research that and get a report to the site. Maybe a week or so, is that enough time?
Looking forward to your results. Meanwhile, I will stand by my assertion unless you can prove otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person