Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, August 01, 2020

Extremist Alex Jones is appealing to the nation's highest court after sanctions for his profanity-laden call-to-war against his "enemies" behind the Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit were upheld by Connecticut Supreme Court.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Interesting photo at the top of the article from back in April 2020 before COVID-19 struck Texas hard.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-08-01 09:01 AM | Reply

This element of the country isn't going to go down without a fight.

They think making threats is protected by the first amendment.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2020-08-01 01:06 PM | Reply

Alex Jones' parents are probably ashamed that they brought such a piece of crap into this world. Thank God, none of my kids are like Alex Jones. Sincerely, thank you God. I honestly am thankful for that, it would be terrible to wake up one day and realize Alex Jones was one of your own offspring.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2020-08-01 03:36 PM | Reply

That's just the problem. The more fight he's given, the more he fights.

#4 | Posted by LesWit at 2020-08-01 05:35 PM | Reply

Alex Despicable Jones needs to suffer the consequences of his actions.

#5 | Posted by bingy at 2020-08-01 05:40 PM | Reply

The This American Life about Alex Jones explains how this guy came to be the piece of ---- he is.

Spoiler Alert: He's a bully who plays the victim.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-01 05:41 PM | Reply

Personification of schizophrenia.

Everyone's out to get him.

All the time.

Everyone has sinister ulterior motives and they're somehow all in cahoots.

All the time.

#7 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2020-08-01 05:48 PM | Reply

I cannot believe the hate I'm seeing here directed at the lycanthrope community.

Werewolves are just misunderstood. You should hear him howl at the Moon - it's beautiful.

And buy some supplements while you're there.

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-08-01 05:53 PM | Reply

They think making threats is protected by the first amendment.

Threats are protected speech, "true threats" are not.

1. The Supreme Court has made clear that threats " including threats against the life of the President " can only be punished if they are "true threats," which is to say "statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals." Constitutionally proscribable true threats are those "where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death." The speaker need not actually intend to act on the threat, but the threat has to be reasonably perceived as a "serious expression of an intent to commit" that act. (Some lower courts have suggested that the Court didn't really mean to limit the First Amendment exception to speech made with the deliberate purpose of placing someone in fear of bodily harm or death. But even if that is accepted, a statement would still be unprotected only if a reasonable person would interpret the speech as intended to instill such fear.)
volokh.com

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2020-08-01 07:14 PM | Reply

They think making threats is protected by the first amendment.

Threats are protected speech, "true threats" are not.

1. The Supreme Court has made clear that threats " including threats against the life of the President " can only be punished if they are "true threats," which is to say "statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals." Constitutionally proscribable true threats are those "where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death." The speaker need not actually intend to act on the threat, but the threat has to be reasonably perceived as a "serious expression of an intent to commit" that act. (Some lower courts have suggested that the Court didn't really mean to limit the First Amendment exception to speech made with the deliberate purpose of placing someone in fear of bodily harm or death. But even if that is accepted, a statement would still be unprotected only if a reasonable person would interpret the speech as intended to instill such fear.)
volokh.com

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2020-08-01 07:14 PM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Hmmm interesting. Thanks.

Seems like a rather mushy standard, though, as a person's identical threat could be interpreted quite quite differently under different contexts.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2020-08-02 12:55 AM | Reply

Because Alex Jones is an insufferable attention w**** of a narcissist?

#12 | Posted by Tor at 2020-08-02 03:48 PM | Reply

Sandy Hook bulloney was definitely his worst moment. what a cluster.

#13 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2020-08-03 05:23 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort