American Fascists Are Changing the Meaning of "Freedom of Speech" and No-one is Pushing Back

submitted by raven9 from self.censorship

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]weavilsatemyface 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That is not freedom of speech. If you live in a country that does NOT guarentee you freedom of speech you risk punishment for saying what you think.

Hmmm... so you oppose laws against slander, defamation and libel? Do you think people should be allowed to ruin another person's reputation and good name with lies?

There have always been limits to free speech, some more justifiable than others: defamation, incitement to commit crimes, the old "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" cliche, laws against blasphemy and obscenity, confidentiality agreements, etc. Sometimes those laws are abused. Sometimes they are not.

Alex Jones was found to have gone far beyond merely questioning the official narrative of the Sandy Hook shooting, but to have defamed the survivor's families going on for ten years. Truth is a defense against defamation, and Jones admitted that his stories were not based on truth.

Hey, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy. But remember, not all conspiracy theories are true.

Alex Jones is wealthy enough to afford lawyers who could have advised him how to avoid crossing that line from protected speech and opinion to unprotected defamation, but no, he got greedy, stupid and arrogant and thought that he could lie and ruin the reputation of others without consequences.

Hmmm... maybe Jones is part of the conspiracy? What better way to support the hoax than to have a controlled opposition hit with a fake lawsuit:

  • they fake the shooting;
  • Jones pretends to attack the shooting narrative;
  • when the Sandy Hook hoax is no longer doing its job, recharge it with a fake lawsuit against Jones;
  • where his lawyer conveniently "accidentally" sends all his emails to the opposing lawyer;
  • thus "proving" that Jones knew he was lying about the shooting;
  • guaranteeing a huge amount of media attention which reinforces the Sandy Hook narrative and scares off any whistle-blowers and skeptics.

That's some real 4D chess going on there, and they're three steps ahead of you.

You wait and see. Jones will never pay one cent, because the whole lawsuit is part of the hoax.

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hmmm... so you oppose laws against slander, defamation and libel? Do you think people should be allowed to ruin another person's reputation and good name with lies?

This happens all the time in America. Politicians and journalists do it all the time to each other and foreign countries.

Alex Jones was found to have gone far beyond merely questioning the official narrative of the Sandy Hook shooting, but to have defamed the survivor's families going on for ten years. Truth is a defense against defamation, and Jones admitted that his stories were not based on truth.

His story was based on speculation. If ppl are going to get sued for conspiracy theories, then half of the world is eligible for getting sued. No one even knows the name of the woman suing him.

What better way to support the hoax than to have a controlled opposition hit with a fake lawsuit

Whether you're sarcastic or not, this is likely the truth. Military wrote a book on it, having controlled opposition using the truth to gain rapport then slip in government disinformation to their followers. Half of Alex Jones' family is CIA. ' It's not 4D chess though, it's just a lame dystopia.

Video goes over Rogan and Jones as controlled opposition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PZnChP8W3I

[–]raven9[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hmmm... so you oppose laws against slander, defamation and libel? Do you think people should be allowed to ruin another person's reputation and good name with lies?

No. I said the constitution does.

There have always been limits to free speech

Well according to the first amendment there shouldnt have been. "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to freedom of speech”. Its quite clear.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see I'm talking to an armchair supreme court judge with a law degree from the university of It Stands To Reason.

Well according to the first amendment there shouldnt have been. "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to freedom of speech”. Its quite clear.

Not so clear to the Founding Fathers, who treated common law torts like defamation to be outside of constitutional protection. Not so clear to the courts who treated it as unprotected speech like obscenities and "fighting words".