Can Alex Jones and his ilk be legally sued for slander and libel

[Downtown Hound]

for falsely smearing mass shooting survivors and their families? And if so, why has this not happened yet? And might this not be a good campaign for #NeverAgain to wage? You say we're all actors asshole? Let's give you the chance to prove it in a court of law.

My understanding of the matter is this: slander is spoken, libel is written. Alex Jones is guilty of both. To prove either, you must be able to prove in a court of law that the defendant did not tell the truth. Should be pretty easy here. A legal death certificate for each victim should suffice. And if they really need it. police photos of the victims, the ones never released to the public, should work. Not to mention first responder testimony, medical staff testimony, survivor eyewitness testimony, all those.

And finally, you have to prove that you were in some way negatively affected by said libel or slander. I don't think there's a single family of the Sandy Hook victims that did not experience harassment due to the damnable lies told by Alex Jones. I've also read about survivors of the Vegas shooting going through the same thing to the point where some of them had to close their Facebook pages and other social media. And now, the Parker students and their families.

Enough is enough. It's time to start fighting back against these smear artists and fear propagandists. As I understand it, truth is the only real defense against libel, meaning that Alex Jones would have to be able to prove in court that the shootings really were a hoax and these kids really are crisis actors as he claims. Tee hee. Good luck with that.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Don't Believe So

But defamation seems another matter.
Need one of our lawyers here to opine
Slander and libel, I believe require proof of malice and proof they knew what they said was false
Both might be the case, but seems really(!) hard to prove.

[Downtown Hound]

5. How newpapers handle it is when they get something wrong, they print a retraction

Granted that retraction is usually buried on page 9 or whatever, but it saves them from legal retaliation. Which means that if Jones was taken to court, he would have to admit publicly that he was incorrect in his assertions.

And I think you're wrong about having to prove malicious intent. What you have to prove is that your reputation or your livelihood was in some way negatively effected, whether the intention was malicious or not. If the intention was not malicious, then a retraction will often suffice. Either way, Jones loses and takes responsibility for his lies.

And just to let you know, I do have a degree in journalism. Never did much with it except a brief 2 year stint for ABC as an advertising exec, and never went to court for any libel cases, but I did study this stuff in school and am going off of what I remember.

[rsdsharp]

27. Libel and slander are defamation.

Libel is defamation in print. Slander is spoken defamation.

I think you're are conflating defamation against a public figure which requires proof of actual malice. "Actual malice" is defined as making the statement knowing it to be false, or with reckless indifference as to its truth or falsity.

The elements of a claim of defamation vary by state, but typically they invovle

1. Deliberate publication (to at least one third party)

2. Of an untrue statement

3. Tending to harm the reputation of the defamed party

4. So as to lower him in the estimation of the community, or cause him to be shunned.

Actual malice isn't required unless the plaintiff is a public figure. There may be some question as to whether these students are now public figures given there leadership role in the movement.

[jberryhill]

2. Here's the problem with this general class of question

This question - and various forms of it - is common here on DU. In general, the framing of the question completely misses the mark.

Post a direct quote that you are talking about. Don't handwave at how he has generally stated this or that, take a direct quote.

Things like "Some people say that they are actors" is a statement of fact. "Some people say" those things. Him stating that "some people say" it is not a direct statement that they are actors. It is a statement observing what "some people say". It's a common device, along with others along the lines of:

"I believe they are actors". What is that statement saying? Is it untrue? If he believes they are actors, then "I believe they are actors" is a true statement of his opinion.

About 99% of all the shit he spews will fall into that first bucket. They are statements of opinion or belief, or they are statements about what other people believe, and they are not direct statements of fact.

These kinds of legal claims are what are generally referred to as "fact intensive" - i.e. they are very dependent on exceedingly specific facts concerning the statement alleged to be defamatory.

There is no legal impediment to stating an opinion, nor is there a legal requirement that your opinions be correct.

For example, I can say, "I think Dana Loesch eats dead children for breakfast" or "Dana Loesch strikes me as the kind of person who eats dead children for breakfast". Neither of those statements is a factual assertion as to whether she does or does not eat dead children for breakfast. They are statements of my opinion. But, consider the facts:

1. Have you ever seen her eating breakfast?

2. If not, then why does it seem that she is hiding what she eats for breakfast?

3. Has anyone ever proven that she does not eat dead children for breakfast?

4. Dana Loesch has NEVER denied that she eats dead children for breakfast.

Based on my investigation of those questions, I am of the opinion that she does eat dead children for breakfast.

Okay, now, you be the judge - have I made any statements which are untrue?

[Downtown Hound]

6. A couple of things:

In that case, you can't actually prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Dana Loesch does not eat dead children for breakfast. You can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sandy Hook massacre DID happen.

Second, Dana Loesch is a public figure in a position that invites public scrutiny. That is not the case with the families of these murder victims, so the rules are different.

Third, Dana Loesch would have to prove that such a claim had serious negative consequences for her personally. I don't think she would realistically be able to do that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. In a civil case you do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That standard applies only in criminal cases. Defamation is a civil matter, so the plaintiff is required only to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

[Downtown Hound]

39. Works for me. n/t

[Yonnie3]

22. Thanks for answering much of my question (before I asked)

This is stirring up memories of a specific lecture in my seminar and the response to a what if question. That seminar was about not exposing your employer to lawsuits, so it was very limited.

[Ms. Toad]

49. There's also the issue of damages.

In most states, demonstration of actual economic harm is required. (Even with presumed damages for slander per se or libel, it is an affirmative defense to demonstrate that the target of the defamation did not incur any actual economic harm.

(But you sound like me with my bar-babies who want to analyze defamation without quoting the language used.)

[Puzzledtraveller]

65. Thank you

[OneBlueDotBama]

3. He's Been Sued,

Alex Jones Retracts Chobani Claims to Resolve Lawsuit
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/alex-jones-chobani-lawsuit.html

[Downtown Hound]

8. I think it's time he was sued again. n/t

[trueblue2007]

53. AND SUED AGAIN !!!!

[Yonnie3]

4. From a long ago tort mini class

I seem to recall (hopefully correctly) that a proof of intent to harm is required for libel or slander against a public figure. This was an explanation why politicians were not often successfully sued for out and out campaign lies. An argument will be that these kids made themselves into public figures by speaking out and Alex's sources were unfortunately wrong. A zealot lawyer might take this on contingency, but a well funded suit with the unexpressed purpose of putting Alex Jones in bankruptcy would certainly get a contribution from me.

Hopefully someone will post who knows more than me.

[Downtown Hound]

7. Calling the families of massacred children liars and crisis actors

would seem to me a malicious act.

[jberryhill]

9. Again, post the direct quote

Post the date and time when Alex Jones called a specific person a liar, and the specific quote in question.

He does a lot by innuendo and implication, because he is not completely stupid.

[Downtown Hound]

10. Right here:

http://www.newsweek.com/alex-jones-megyn-kelly-sandy-hook-infowars-627129

[jberryhill]

13. Which statement are you referring to?

I gather I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. Please identify the defamatory statement:

“I do think there’s some coverup and some manipulation,” Jones said of the mass shooting that left 20 young students and six staff dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

"I've watched the footage and it looks like a drill,"

Both are statements of opinion, and not even directed at a particular person or their character.

“I tend to believe that children probably did die there. But then, you look at all the other evidence on the other side, I can see how other people believe that nobody died there.”

That's a variety of the "some people say" thing, and again, who is it that is being defamed?

If you are just going to post an article with a number of direct and indirect statements, and not identify the defamatory statement, then I don't see what you are driving at.

Post a defamatory quote made by Alex Jones. It must (a) a factual assertion directed at a specific individual, and (b) not be a statement of opinion or belief.

[Downtown Hound]

21. Even the statement

"some cover up and manipulation" is defamatory. But that was a later interview in which he backtracked a little bit. I already posted you an article in which he claimed the whole thing was made up.

Sorry, but even saying that the parents of murdered children are engaged in "some cover up and manipulation" is defamatory in and of itself.

[jberryhill]

23. He did not accuse any identifiable person or persons of that

Look, if you think for one red-hot moment that the persons most directly affected by the shit he says have not gone over this in excruciating detail with counsel, then you are kidding yourself.

These statement fall into buckets of (a) too vague to be considered directed at any particular persons, (b) statements of opinion, (c) statements about what other people think, etc..

[Downtown Hound]

25. I don't agree with that at all

Sorry but he smeared a very specific group of people and they are not hard to indentify at all. And it is not hard to prove the harassment they endured as a result either.

[jberryhill]

26. Okay, so, to recap

Jones says the event was fake.

You say the parents and their lawyers are stupid.

Got it.

[Downtown Hound]

29. No I didn't say that.

I'm saying you have given me no valid legal explanation as to why this does not fall under both libel and slander. Unlike you I don't claim to know what was said between the parents or their lawyers.

[jberryhill]

31. You don't think they've gone over this?

Really?

They have legal counsel and have been pursuing various actions. You don't think this ever occurred to them?

[Downtown Hound]

32. I have no idea what has occurred to them

Last edited Thu Feb 22, 2018, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

All I know is that the explanations you've given me hold no water.

[jberryhill]

35. Ah, well then

Do you plan on bringing this overlooked idea to their attention?

Because one of your examples was definitely looked into:

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-nbc-0616-20170615-story.html

In a letter to NBC News executives obtained by the Los Angeles Times, a law firm representing the families says the network is inflicting harm on them by presenting the views of Jones, a right-wing Internet radio host and founder of the website Infowars, even though the network knows they are false.

NBC aired it. No suit was forthcoming.

[Downtown Hound]

37. I think maybe you underestimate how diffcult, financially and emotionally,

it can be to wage a lawsuit like this. Many people simply don't have the financial resources or the energy to carry it through. It does not mean they don't have a valid legal case. And if #NeverAgain does become a financial powerhouse, they might be able to do so.

[jberryhill]

40. They are litigating already

First off, a simple case with clear liability is golden for contingent fee litigators.

Secondly, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the parents ARE engaged in litigation, and in fact had their lawyers threaten NBC over the very interview you cited.

They've been litigating this case for more than five years now:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/health/sandy-hook-gun-hearing-begins-in-connecticut/index.html

I've been practicing law for over a decade. Are you actually telling me that I don't know how difficult litigation can be on the parties?

[Downtown Hound]

41. Well you told me no lawsuit was forthcoming

And then you went on to tell me that they are currently litigating a different one. So is it not possible that they simply decided to focus their efforts there instead of Jones? Which would make sense, given that the gun industry is more responsible than he is.

And sorry to report to you, but I am not psychic and do not automatically know what your profession is. But for a lawyer, you still have not given me a satisfactory answer as to why Jones is not guilty of libel and slander. But if I was a parent of a murdered child, I would blame the gun industry and their lobbying more than I blame Jones, and would much rather they be held responsible even though Jones is clearly guilty as well.

[jberryhill]

43. I said that no defamation lawsuit was being pursued

Again, the prospect of monetary damages from a clear defamation suit is more immediate, and a boatload simpler, than the suit against the gun manufacturers. If the circumstances and the law were as clear as you believe them to be, then contingent fee lawyers would be beating a path to their doors.

As far as where various victims are "focusing their efforts", you seem to be unaware of what some of them have in fact been doing in relation to takedown policies of online content providers:

http://people.com/crime/lenny-pozner-sandy-hook-dad-fights-conspiracy-theories/


Five years after Noah was killed in his first-grade classroom, Pozner says his anti-hoax efforts have “been occupying most of my time as a way to protect my son’s legacy.”

Given that he spends "most of my time" going after this stuff, I believe the possibility that he has not gone down this road of "let's sue Alex Jones for defamation" is slim.

But for a lawyer, you still have not given me a satisfactory answer as to why Jones is not guilty of libel and slander.

And you have not identified a direct quote in which an identifiable individual has been defamed. It is not my job to provide you with an answer which you find satisfactory.

Furthermore, I have not said he is not liable for defamation. I don't know the totality of statements he has made. The examples you have given are, variously, vague, statements of opinion, and statements about the beliefs of others.

There are people right here on DU who are convinced that the 9/11 attacks were some sort of "fake event", "false flag" etc.. Those types of general assertions do not necessarily amount to statements that any particular victim's family is lying.

[Downtown Hound]

44. Alex Jones does not have to name the Sandy Hook victims by name to be guilty of defamation

By saying that he thinks it's a hoax, and that the people we see grieving on TV are actors, he is very clearly defaming the victims. I have explained this to you several times now and you don't seem to get it. If you are a grieving Sandy Hook victim and you appeared on TV, he defamed you. He doesn't have to mention you by name. If you lost your child and he is claiming you didn't and are lying, he defamed you.

Second, to meet the criteria of defamation, you have to prove that harm befell you as a result. Given that just about all of them experienced harassment after the fact, I'd say that qualifies.

You keep coming back to the point that unless Jones mentioned them by name, no defamation occurred. I do not believe that to be the case.

In the case of 9-11, no one is accusing the victims of lying,. They are accusing the government of either allowing the attacks to happen as a pretext for invading the Middle East or actually carrying out the attacks themselves to carry forward with it. No one has said that the people who lost loved ones didn't really lose loved ones. No one called the families of the dead in the middle of the night and called them liars. You're comparing apples to oranges there.

[jberryhill]

46. "No one has said that the people who lost loved ones didn't really lose loved ones."

Are you joking? Google the word "vicsims". Here, I'll make it easy for you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=vicsims

And, no, it is not a question of whether or not he identifies them by name.

And, yeah, in the

"By saying that he thinks it's a hoax..."

He can say that he thinks that. Again, that is a statement of opinion or belief. Again, which specific statement are you talking about. Put it in quotes.

"Second, to meet the criteria of defamation, you have to prove that harm befell you as a result. Given that just about all of them experienced harassment after the fact, I'd say that qualifies."

What you are missing here is causation. Alex Jones is not the only one propounding various disgusting ideas about Sandy Hook. In order to hold Jones liable, one has to show that the harassment was specifically due to a statement made by Jones. Several of the harassers have indeed been convicted of criminal offenses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories#Harassment_by_conspiracy_theorists

And there appears to be an organization specifically formed for going after people engaging in harassment. You should really check out their site:

http://www.honr.com/

I don't believe for one red hot second that if there were a clear case against Jones, it would not have gone forward.

[Downtown Hound]

47. No Alex Jones isn't the only one

But he is one of the most prominent. And no, defamation does not rest solely on whether or not you can prove that whoever was doing the harassing was influenced DIRECTLY by Jones and Jones alone. All Jones has to do in engage in defamation, which he did. That can be easily proved.

Okay, maybe there's a few dipshits out here that actually think there weren't victims on 9-11, but for the most part, the conspiracy theories surrounding 9-11 have nothing to do with the victims. they have to do with the government and who did the killing, not whether or not people actually died.

[jberryhill]

51. You don't understand the structure of civil claims

"And no, defamation does not rest solely on whether or not you can prove that whoever was doing the harassing was influenced DIRECTLY by Jones and Jones alone."

Yes, you do. You have to show that Jone's statement was the actual and proximate cause of the claimed damage. The type of damage in question in defamation suits is the calculable harm to the plaintiff's reputation in the community.

Civil claims, in general, have the following structure:

Defendant must commit <set of defined acts and circumstances> with <requisite mental state> CAUSING <damage>.

That word - causation - is the subject of a LOT of legal interpretation, and it is where a lot of claims get bogged down. You have to prove the elements, and you have to prove that those elements were the actual and proximate cause of the alleged damage.


Your OP had several questions:

1. Can Alex Jones and his ilk be legally sued for slander and libel for falsely smearing mass shooting survivors and their families?

Can he be sued. Yes. Is such a suit likely to be successful (which is what this sort of question is usually driving at)? Not on the basis of direct quotes I've seen thus far. You are convinced that the answer is yes, and that it is likely to be successful. We disagree. If you were convinced that the answer was yes on both counts, then I don't understand why you framed your post in the form of a question, instead of a proposition about which you were already convinced.

2. And if so, why has this not happened yet?

My belief on that question, given the pre-emptive threat against NBC news, criminal prosecutions of harassers, and other litigation activity by the victims, is that they have in all likelihood carefully gone over Jones' statements with a fine toothed comb with sophisticated legal counsel, continue to do so, and have made a determination about the relative likelihood of it being worthwhile.

3. And might this not be a good campaign for #NeverAgain to wage?

I don't know what a hashtag can do as a legal entity. You can't sue someone on behalf of someone else (absent circumstances not relevant here). Any such action would have to be brought by a directly impacted party.

Those are my off-the-cuff responses to the questions posed in your OP. You disagree with them. That's fine.

You might want to check out this website: www.honr.com - since you seem to be unaware that this campaign is, in fact, being waged.

HONR.COM is the website of Honr Network - a non-profit established by Lenny Pozner, whose son Noah was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. Its purpose is specifically to go after people who spread conspiracy theories about the event. The GoFundMe page for this effort is here: https://www.gofundme.com/honrlegalfund

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/12/what-kind-of-person-calls-the-sandy-hook-shooting-a-hoax/

To further his cause, Pozner has created an organization, called the HONR Network, whose goal is to “bring awareness to Hoaxer activity” and “prosecute those who wittingly and publicly defame, harass, and emotionally abuse the victims of high profile tragedies.” Since there is no criminal law that protects families like Pozner’s from the darker impulses of the Internet, he and his volunteers — folks he met virtually, when he began debunking — perform a slow and painful task. Whenever a video or a screed appears online attacking the victims of a horrible event, they alert venues like YouTube that their rules have been broken. The victories have been small. Though they’ve removed hundreds of links from the Internet, there are countless more like them.


You now have all of the information you need to contribute directly to the cause of going after internet hoaxers and conspiracists who harm these families.

You're welcome.

[Downtown Hound]

45. "I don't know the totality of statements he has made."

Then allow me to repeat some of them, once again:

"Yeah, so, Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are, that they clearly used actors. I mean they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey -- so yeah, or Pakistan. The sky is now the limit. I appreciate your call."

"Also, a web link below the video excerpt led us to check on Jones’ Dec. 28, 2014, episode in which the host, responding to a caller, called the Sandy Hook incident "a giant hoax." Jones elaborated: "The general public doesn’t know the school was actually closed the year before." Also: "They don’t know they had kids going in and out of the building as a photo opp." And, Jones said on that show: "But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake. I mean, I couldn’t believe it. I knew they jumped on it, used the crisis, hyped it up. But then I did deep research--and my gosh, it just pretty much didn’t happen."

We found a little more Jones’ commentary. In a Sept. 24, 2014, episode of the show, Jones cited a story on the InfoWars webpage that day headlined, "FBI says no one killed at Sandy Hook." Jones then said, "According to FBI crime statistics at FBI.gov, no one died in 2012 in Sandy Hook. It shows no homicides in that town."

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-correct-austins-alex-jones-said-no/

[shanny]

55. oy vey

"...fake with actors, in my view, manufactured." "...my gosh, it just pretty much didn't happen." "Jones cited a story on the InfoWars webpage...."

also too, "they" "they" "they" "they" did this, that, hyped it up, jumped on it, etc. For the purposes of a suit, and who has standing / has been defamed, who are "THEY"?

[Downtown Hound]

56. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand:

They are the parents and families of students killed at Sandy Hook and the surviving children Jones accused of being crisis actors.

Comprendo? It's really not that hard to figure out. Now you may try and tell me that that doesn't fit the definition of a legal case for defamation (I disagree), but for the love of God, stop asking me who "they' are. I have answered this question numerous times already.

[shanny]

57. I don't know why this is difficult to understand:

the law--any law--requires FACTS, not obvious assumptions. it is really not that hard to figure out--alex jones and company clearly have

[Downtown Hound]

58. Um, this is a FACT.

there are these things called people who lost a family member in the tragedy and there are these other things called victims who survived it. It is not some abstract concept. They are real and flesh and blood.

[shanny]

59. I get your outrage. It doesn't change what the law says and what the law requires

which was exhaustively explained to you above. Those are also facts, however unpalatable.

[Downtown Hound]

60. No, it was not explained to me

Yes, I understand that any lawsuit filed would have to include specific names. Obviously. But when Jones says that the people involved made it all up, he does not need to mention them by name to be guilty of defamation. That's what I'm not agreeing with. He mentioned them as a group. If you can show me a specific law or case in which it says that he would have to specifically call them out by name to be guilty then I'd believe you.

But in all the journalism classes I took, and I took quite a few that dealt with libel, I never once came across the concept that you have to have a specific name in lieu of a group that was defamed to have a case.

[shanny]

61. Yes he DOES have to mention them by name.

More than that he has to state whatever as a FACT, not something he thinks, or heard, or read about. "So-and-so said X, or did Y" > so-and-so can sue for that, if it is not true, and if it caused harm. Suggestions and innuendo don't rise to level required.

Go back to your journalism teachers and ask them. Do you think--if you were right and it was so easy--that Limbaugh, Hannity, Alex Jones, Bill O'Reilly et al wouldn't have already been sued into penury? For all the crap they have said over the years? Sure they have deep pockets but not that deep. Not deep enough for every damn thing they say every day.

Not liking it doesn't change it.

[Downtown Hound]

62. Show me the law or case study that says that.

[Downtown Hound]

63. ...

li·bel
ˈlībəl/Submit
noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
synonyms: defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.
verb
1.
LAW
defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
"she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
synonyms: defame, malign, slander, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, drag someone's name through the mud, besmirch, tarnish, taint, tell lies about, stain, impugn someone's character/integrity, vilify, denigrate, disparage, run down, stigmatize, discredit, slur; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) bring a suit against (someone).


All any of this says is you have to damage a person's reputation. It does not say you have to mention them by name to do it.

[shanny]

64. ffs "a person"

WHICH person? A specific person.

If it helps, think about the difference between the way the word "theory" is used by scientists and the general public. In the first case, it indicates an hypothesis that is consistent with all the known facts; in the second it is an idea.

Legalese, and legal meaning, may look like plain English to you or me, but it isn't, in practice.

That is all I have to say.

[Downtown Hound]

66. A specific person, yes.

As in, a survivor of the shooting or a family member who lost a loved one. They ARE specific people. That they were not mentioned by name does not mean they weren't mentioned and are not specific people.

[Takket]

68. you are on the right side of morality but the wrong side of the law

The reason Newton victims haven't sued Jones is because they can't point towards specific damage done to their "reputation" as a result of him theorizing and implying things.

On the other hand if he came out and said Bob Smith is an actor and pretending to be a Newton grieving parent for TV time, and Bob's wife divorces him in disgust and his boss fires him, now Bob Smith can sue the hell out of Alex Jones.

[jberryhill]

70. The argument seems to be...

That instead of "reputational harm" which is the ordinary requirement, the OP suggests that the false statements inspired other crazy people to harass the subjects, so we have also danced passed (in addition to proximate causation), the test of whether the speaker was a source that would be objectively taken as credible.

[Downtown Hound]

11. And here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alex-jones-megyn-kelly-interview-infowars-sandy-hook-parents-response-conspiracy-theories-a7786656.html

[jberryhill]

14. Again, what is the statement in the article or the video which is defamatory

Look, I'm not watching that asshole all day. Pick a direct statement.

The point is that he is very cagey in the way he says stuff.

[Downtown Hound]

16. Read the bottom article

"They don’t know they had kids going in and out of the building as a photo opp." And, Jones said on that show: "But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake. I mean, I couldn’t believe it. I knew they jumped on it, used the crisis, hyped it up. But then I did deep research--and my gosh, it just pretty much didn’t happen."

[jberryhill]

18. Who is the individual defamed by that statement?

What bad thing does that statement assert against an identified individual?

[Downtown Hound]

20. There is no one individual

There are many individualS who later experienced harassment as a result. And are you really serious when you ask me what bad thing does that assert against any individual? Really?

Well let's see, it implies that these people who either lived through this traumatic event or lost somebody to it is a liar and part of a conspiracy to defraud the American people. If you really need to me to explain to you why that's a bad thing then I really don't see much hope for you.

[jberryhill]

33. You are really missing the point

First, note your use of "it implies". Defamatory statements are defamatory statements, not implications.

Secondly, I don't need any explanation that what Jones does is "a bad thing". Of course it is "a bad thing". If there were some general law against "bad things" he'd definitely be nailed.

Your question is not "does Alex Jones do bad things". Your question is about a specific legal cause of action. I normally think that questions are invitations to discuss a topic, but since you have turned it into an excuse to say stuff like "I really don't see much hope for you" to someone who is somewhat more familiar with the relevant law than you are, then you can go on "implying" that the parents and their lawyers are too dumb to know any better.

[Downtown Hound]

34. Fine.

Claiming that the parents and victims of Sandy Hook are lying and part of a cover up is a defamatory statement. It does not imply a defamatory statement. IT IS ONE. Happy now?

[jberryhill]

36. Which quote

In which of the referenced articles you have posted thus far does Alex Jones state that the parents are lying and part of a cover up?

Again, you are going to an indirect statement to make your point.

Here is a pair of quotation marks:

" "

Place between them the statement where Alex Jones claims that an identifiable individual is lying.

I realize that you feel a need to take out some personal frustration on me for some reason, but the point is that these things get very fact-intensive, and the presumption is in favor of the speaker. And that's just getting over the threshold hump of whether a defamatory statement was made. The next step - causation - is to prove that anyone harassing the families was specifically motivated by the statement in question. That's a whole other can of worms.

Defamation cases are not simple, and having a sympathetic plaintiff doesn't make them any simpler.

[Downtown Hound]

38. If he's accusing the people we see on TV of being paid actors

Then he is accusing ALL of them of being paid actors. And if he wants to dispute that he only meant some of them, then he can explain which ones in a court of law.

[Downtown Hound]

12. And here:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-correct-austins-alex-jones-said-no/

There are many others. Google it.

[Yonnie3]

15. Where did I say Alex Jones wasn't malicious? n/t

[Downtown Hound]

17. You said proof or intent to harm was required to prove libel or slander against a public official

I said that calling the survivors liars and actors is pretty malicious. i never said you didn't say that. I was pointing out that this case meets that criteria.

[Yonnie3]

19. Ok - I took it wrong - sorry

I was looking for information as to how a suit might be successful. We know Alex Jones is malicious scum. He does malicious and harmful things.

Another poster has said that it must be a direct statement. I seem to recall some discussion of that. Harming someone by innuendo was a tough one to pursue.

[Ms. Toad]

50. Intent to harm is not required.

The standard is malice, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. What malice requires, in the defamation context, is that the statement was published knowing it was false (whether your motive in publishing it was to harm the target or not)

[Yonnie3]

52. Thanks n/t

[titaniumsalute]

24. NOPE

[Downtown Hound]

28. Why not?

[titaniumsalute]

69. By the way

My answer was incorrect. Yes you can sue anyone for nearly anything at anytime. So yes they can sue (suing is legal). Winning is a different issue. But suing for slander or libel nearly always fails.

You must prove two things. One is easy sometimes, the other not so much. First you must prove that what was said verbally or in writing is 100% false. That can be the easy part.

Second, however, is the defamation and harm caused by what was said. It must be irrefutable. Making someone feel bad, making someone have a lesser reputation, doesn't cut it in court. It is too subjective. The best way to prove harm caused by slander or libel is if you can very definitively prove that the harm caused revenues to decline for a business or a brand. But frankly that is even a tough road as a defense will always be all of the other variables that could have caused a revenue decline in a business setting...IE Stock market, market conditions, competition, poor management, poor accounting, etc.

Slander and libel cases are overwhelmingly either thrown out or lost.

The last part is the first amendment. It does protect people who say really stupid shit.

[WyattKansas]

42. Kansas has CRIMINAL defamation of character laws.

Few people know this, but it is actually a criminal offense in the State of Kansas and can be charged that way instead of a civil case.

I haven't looked into exactly how it would all play out, whether it's still on the books, or whether it's even taken seriously, but I do remember running across it at one time researching something.

[NCTraveler]

48. No.

Alex Jones is not competent to stand trial.

[Downtown Hound]

54. LOL. I'd settle for commitment to an institution. n/t

[Exotica]

67. Yep