Alex Jones Still Has No Idea What Freedom Of Speech Is
In a testament to the sheer insane length of pretty much any lawsuit going through the United States legal system, the endless slog continues for the lawsuit between furious tomato Alex Jones and the parents of victims in the Sandy Hook massacre. Jones arrived at the courthouse today to testify, and, because Alex Jones is incapable of existing for even one second as anything but a caricature of himself, he arrived with his mouth duct-taped shut. Now, normally, his mouth being duct-taped shut would be a relief, but even that was taken away because written on the duct tape was a message to “Save the 1st,” referring to the 1st Amendment. Because, like a dog with a stuffed toy, Jones’ brand of conservative is determined at all costs to protect something that they are completely incapable of explaining.
The message here seems to be that the defamation lawsuit Jones is currently losing, badly, is an assault on his first amendment rights. Apparently, the founding fathers would be spinning in their graves to find that someone has not been allowed to tell grieving parents that their murdered children never actually existed, and that they’re all actors of the deep state. Unfortunately, though every defamation case is TECHNICALLY a free speech case, in the vast majority of instances, it’s pretty obvious what the difference is. The biggest problem here is that those differences require the ability to be able to tell both fact from fiction, and opinion of fact, two particular differences that Jones handles with all the tact of a colorblind man attempting to solve a Rubik’s cube.
Though it feels like pissing up a waterfall, I’ll attempt here to explain the difference for anyone that is confused, and maybe even Jones himself, though I doubt he’s reading this since this isn’t his usual reading material, like a website that looks like it was built on a particularly patriotic Blogspot skin or a sheaf of child custody papers. Freedom of speech covers your right to voice your opinion on anything you’d like without government punishment. For example, I can sit here for as long as I’d like, writing or saying that I think Alex Jones is basically a piece of intellectual roadkill that’s managed to slither into a man’s empty boulder of a head and operate it like a body-horror Ratatouille, without anyone stifling that. What defamation is, is to state as fact something that’s verifiably untrue about a specific person or group of people, that would damage their well-being or reputation.
For example, if I were to publish that Alex Jones was thrown out of a Chuck E. Cheese for throwing skeeballs at the animatronics because he thought they were real animals who had learned to speak and sing, while knowing it was false, that would be defamation.
Similarly, if I were to claim as true the fact that Alex Jones had to go to the hospital because he got so angry during a road rage incident that he tried to suck all the air out of a Jeep’s tires, that would also be untrue, and open to a claim of defamation.
Just as one last example, if I were to start my own radio show, and spend all my time on air saying, conclusively, that Alex Jones drinks exclusively toilet water because he believes it to be the only water source free of government chemicals, and through doing such, contracted hepatitis C washing down a Whopper with the doo-doo water from a Burger King bathroom, I might be in some trouble.
Of course, I’ll be the first to admit, none of the above is true, nor should it be taken as such, so it’s not defamation. Unlike someone who would continually, and almost certainly verifiably while knowing it was untrue (something they could have argued, if he'd agreed to release e-mails and documents demanded by the court, which he didn't, for SOME reason) claim that grieving parents were part of a false-flag operation, resulting in death threats and harassment.
The more you know!