you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, biased lawyers are trying to put some context to the for-show joke trial, meant only to squash free speech and journalism.

The trial wasn't a joke. getting people to send death threats to grieving parents, and supplying them their address, so that they have to move 7 times in 10 years because they're not physically or emotionally safe is something that the law should be able to stop.

The defence, on the other hand, was a joke. It turns out the most egregious disregard for the court ever seen by those reporting on the trial isn't a good way to defend yourself.

When you ban all the specific defense before the trial starts, not anything to do with discoveries, which you seem confused about

Okay, you're right. I don't think that happened. Can you link me to the court order banning all the "specific defence". Or a whatever you get this information from.

The prosecution has the burden of proof

Which is why it's a good idea to at least try to avoid a default judgement.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

This trial was a joke and did not follow our criminal justice's normal practices. Those grieving parents were deprived of actual justice.

We all reviewed the trial perpetually mortified as the judge turned the trial into a joke. Then, everyone openly celebrated it like it was a good thing:

https://saidit.net/s/news/comments/9imt/hate_filled_sickos_pat_themselves_on_the_back/

My bad...I think that link was the wrong time this happened....for Bannon. It seems to be a repeated pattern. I'll have to keep digging, as it seems most reporting of it was delisted and replaced with a flood of repeating that "Jones refuses to defend himself," the inaccurate talking point that hopes to hide these early failures of the court.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This trial was a joke and did not follow our criminal justice's normal practices.

For instance?

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The crazy discovery, the banned defense and banned things to mention. The pretending him personally, companies he is associated with, companies he owns fully or partiality, and his media personalities are all one in the same. Removing any testing of Journalistic Constitutional protections. Basic removing a fair playing field, which seems to be a disparaging one-sided trend.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The crazy discovery, the banned defense and banned things to mention.

But when you say "banned defense" you're not talking about the default judgement?

So what was banned, and what things to mention were banned?

And what was crazy about the discovery? (Except that Jones ignored it).

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I was down with covid for a week and lost track of where we were with this, sorry.

The discovery demanded info from companies and entities not involved with the lawsuit or accusations.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Did it?

What information from which entities?

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

All information requested from entities not listed as defendants.