Alex Jones v. Brianna Wu, Andy Kimmel, & The Young Turks, LLC - Withdrawn by Plaintiff Jones in January, 2020.

[DragoonSierra]

They'd probably try to use the Massachusetts SLAPP law.

Has anyone on here actually looked at it? And does Brianna have a duty to retract if the original article issued a retraction?

 

[Maradontia]

If he wins, he'll have more money to give to the Sandy Hook parents.

 

[Ellesse_warrior]

Deep State Moves Against Trump, Impeachment A Real Danger! - FULL SHOW 9/25/19

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

www.infowars.com

There's a bit more in this video than the clip I posted a few pages back. Starts talking about the case at 1:03

He says at 1:10:35 that Wu, Kimmel and TYT accused him of sending CP to the Sandy Hook families not just that he was in possession of it.

Am I right in thinking he has a stronger case if he was being accused of a thing he was a victim of?

(Just for fun, click to 32:53 Jones does an impression of how machines in your house talk to each other)

 

[I can't imagine]

Has anyone on here actually looked at it? And does Brianna have a duty to retract if the original article issued a retraction?

As I read it, the Massachusetts Anti-SLAPP Law specifically requires that the speech be related to your ability to exercise your right to petition the government. It doesn't apply to free speech in general. Assuming it does apply,

The court shall grant such special motion, unless the party against whom such special motion is made shows that: (1) the moving party's exercise of its right to petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and (2) the moving party's acts caused actual injury to the responding party. In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

Now, commenting on a legal investigation on a public forum can be argued to be a petitioning activity, or at the very least, I think that people have successfully argued that. If so, it might work. I'm not a lawyer, though, so someone with more understanding of case law could probably give a better estimate of it's chances of working.

I don't think any private citizen has a duty to check if a news story they commented on was later retracted by the source; that seems like a pretty onerous requirement to place upon people. It might affect things if Wu were to do so, but it's not a "requirement" per se. But, as I said, not a lawyer so I might be wrong.

 

[Dr. Merkwurdichliebe]

As I read it, the Massachusetts Anti-SLAPP Law specifically requires that the speech be related to your ability to exercise your right to petition the government. It doesn't apply to free speech in general. Assuming it does apply,



Now, commenting on a legal investigation on a public forum can be argued to be a petitioning activity, or at the very least, I think that people have successfully argued that. If so, it might work. I'm not a lawyer, though, so someone with more understanding of case law could probably give a better estimate of it's chances of working.

I don't think any private citizen has a duty to check if a news story they commented on was later retracted by the source; that seems like a pretty onerous requirement to place upon people. It might affect things if Wu were to do so, but it's not a "requirement" per se. But, as I said, not a lawyer so I might be wrong.

John's problem is that he didn't comment on a news article: he stated that Jones had threatened to murder the Sandy Hook parents, an accusation that has no basis in fact and that has not been reported by any news organization.

This is what happens when every detail of your entire life story is a ludicrous lie.

 

[I can't imagine]

John's problem is that he didn't comment on a news article: he stated that Jones had threatened to murder the Sandy Hook parents, an accusation that has no basis in fact and that has not been reported by any news organization.

This is what happens when every detail of your entire life story is a ludicrous lie.

I mean, Jones did say that he wanted one of the defendants' attorney's head on a pike, specifically offering $1 million for it. I believe he even mentioned the attorney by name. He was later sanctioned by the court and made an apology, saying he was unhinged at that moment. So yes, you're correct in that Wu attributed the death threat to the parents and not the attorney.

You can make your own determination as to whether this makes the comments have a "reasonable basis in truth", but I don't know that it's entirely a cut-and-dry issue.

 

[Dr. Merkwurdichliebe]

I mean, Jones did say that he wanted one of the defendants' attorney's head on a pike, specifically offering $1 million for it. I believe he even mentioned the attorney by name. He was later sanctioned by the court and made an apology, saying he was unhinged at that moment. So yes, you're correct in that Wu attributed the death threat to the parents and not the attorney.

You can make your own determination as to whether this makes the comments have a "reasonable basis in truth", but I don't know that it's entirely a cut-and-dry issue.

Outside of Game of Thrones, whrn was the last time "I want his head on a pike" was intended or taken literally? Even if it was meant literally, how many jurors are going to nod their heads and say, "A lawyer's head on a pike? Sounds good to me!"

The statement that you want to murder the grieving parents of a group of children who were actually murdered is in a whole different universe.

 

[I can't imagine]

Outside of Game of Thrones, whrn was the last time "I want his head on a pike" was intended or taken literally? Even if it was meant literally, how many jurors are going to nod their heads and say, "A lawyer's head on a pike? Sounds good to me!"

The statement that you want to murder the grieving parents of a group of children who were actually murdered is in a whole different universe.

Possibly. I don't know enough about the court's actual use of the Anti-SLAPP statute in Massachusetts to know whether it's a credible argument for dismissal or not. I'm just not 100% sold that it will definitely fail.

Incidentally, in the complaint filed, the death threat part of Wu's tweet is never directly referenced. The defamation regarding CP is mentioned repeatedly, and the tweet is there in it's entirety, but it's never mentioned that the death threat is defamatory. I'm not sure if that will be added in later, if it can be added in later, or if it even matters, but just thought it was an interesting note.

 

[DragoonSierra]

John's problem is that he didn't comment on a news article: he stated that Jones had threatened to murder the Sandy Hook parents, an accusation that has no basis in fact and that has not been reported by any news organization.

This is what happens when every detail of your entire life story is a ludicrous lie.

What did the article say specifically about "sending cp to sandy hook victims?"

 

[I can't imagine]

What did the article say specifically about "sending cp to sandy hook victims?"

The headline was "Lawyers for Sandy Hook families say Alex Jones sent them child porn". The article is here; I can't get it to archive.

The text is below:

Spoiler: Article Text

BRIDGEPORT — Conspiracy theorist and InfoWars host Alex Jones sent child pornography to the lawyers for the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy, their lawyers said.

The law firm representing the families of the 2012 mass shooting stated in court documents filed Monday they have contacted the FBI after discovering child porn in electronic files Jones recently turned over to the Sandy Hook families as a result of their lawsuit against him for calling the tragedy a hoax.

Jones publicly responded on a broadcast of his show that he is being framed by Chris Mattei, the lawyer for the Sandy Hook families and went on making what Mattei and his law firm, Koskoff, Koskoff and Bieder claim are threats against them.

“You’re trying to set me up with child porn, I’ll get your ass,” Jones states on the broadcast. “One million dollars, you little gang members. One million dollars to put your head on a pike.” Jones then pounds a photograph of Mattei and goes into a rant at one point stating, “I’m gonna kill …”

Jones’ lawyer, Norman Pattis, denied his client was threatening Mattei or the Sandy Hook families and urged people to watch the broadcast for themselves.

“Mr. Jones was upset, he did not threaten Mr. Mattei,” Pattis said. “He spoke in a compassionate fashion.”

Pattis filed a motion on Monday, requesting the lawsuits against his clients to be temporarily halted while an investigation is conducted.

“The plaintiffs’ allegations have raised serious issues concerning conflicts of interest in this case between the Jones defendants and undersigned counsel,” Pattis wrote in the motion.

Pattis said the “issues must be addressed before the above captioned cases proceed any further, in order to protect the interests of all parties involved.”


Meanwhile, lawyers for the Sandy Hook families also filed a motion on Monday, asking the court to take immediate action against Jones.

“This court has an obligation to protect the attorneys, parties and the judicial process,” they state.

A hearing has been scheduled before state Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis on Tuesday.

Jones’ lawyers had previously been ordered to turn over vast amounts of electronically stored data on Jones’ business operations.

Court documents stated that the Sandy Hook lawyers had begun reviewing the electronic files that Jones had turned over when they found child pornography in the files. They immediately contacted the FBI.

“The FBI advised counsel that its review located numerous additional illegal images, which had apparently been sent to InfoWars email addresses,” they stated.

 

[Maradontia]

Outside of Game of Thrones, whrn was the last time "I want his head on a pike" was intended or taken literally? Even if it was meant literally, how many jurors are going to nod their heads and say, "A lawyer's head on a pike? Sounds good to me!"

The statement that you want to murder the grieving parents of a group of children who were actually murdered is in a whole different universe.

Joke's on you! I was just PRETENDING to be retarded!

 

[OneHandClapping]

With the Vic Migogna lawsuit slowed to a crawl, I have something else to look over and laugh at. Cool.

Even better, both lawsuits have some gay in them. Vic's has gay pants, Alex Jones's has gay frogs.

 

[DragoonSierra]

The headline was "Lawyers for Sandy Hook families say Alex Jones sent them child porn". The article is here; I can't get it to archive.

The text is below:

Now thats quite a bit different than saying Alex Jones sent the Sandy Hook parents/families child porn which is what Cenk and Brianna said. Brianna might have a better defense than TYT because she linked the actual article that has the headline clearly visible in the tweet. Either way the implication of the statement is that Alex Jones did so maliciously and thats not true. What are the responses to Briannas tweet? Did they think Alex sent the porn directly to the parents? How a normal person views that statement will matter in court.

 

[Shittus Maximus]

Please let this be as or more entertaining as the Vic case.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

Well, most men can.

Remember that video of him screaming at austin weirdos in a burger joint

 

[I can't imagine]

Now thats quite a bit different than saying Alex Jones sent the Sandy Hook parents/families child porn which is what Cenk and Brianna said. Brianna might have a better defense than TYT because she linked the actual article that has the headline clearly visible in the tweet. Either way the implication of the statement is that Alex Jones did so maliciously and thats not true. What are the responses to Briannas tweet? Did they think Alex sent the porn directly to the parents? How a normal person views that statement will matter in court.

The replies to the tweet overwhelmingly point out that the sending of the child porn wasn't intentional and the FBI determined it was a malicious attack on Jones like a day or two later. It did receive a fair number of likes and RTs though.

It is worth pointing out that the article Wu linked was updated afterward, so some of the details may have changed from the initial publication. Unfortunately, I can't find an archive of the article as it was published.

I dunno. I think the statement is probably actionable defamation, but it's pretty close to the edge. It'll probably come down to the actual lawyering. Well, that, and whether Jones or Wu can manage to make themselves seem sympathetic to any human being on the jury.

 

[CitationNeeded]

The replies to the tweet overwhelmingly point out that the sending of the child porn wasn't intentional and the FBI determined it was a malicious attack on Jones like a day or two later. It did receive a fair number of likes and RTs though.

It is worth pointing out that the article Wu linked was updated afterward, so some of the details may have changed from the initial publication. Unfortunately, I can't find an archive of the article as it was published.

I dunno. I think the statement is probably actionable defamation, but it's pretty close to the edge. It'll probably come down to the actual lawyering. Well, that, and whether Jones or Wu can manage to make themselves seem sympathetic to any human being on the jury.

Come on jury, sentence them to a duel to the death. Then the winner gets fed to a lion. Then the lion gets a right wing talk show.

 

[DragoonSierra]

The replies to the tweet overwhelmingly point out that the sending of the child porn wasn't intentional and the FBI determined it was a malicious attack on Jones like a day or two later. It did receive a fair number of likes and RTs though.

It is worth pointing out that the article Wu linked was updated afterward, so some of the details may have changed from the initial publication. Unfortunately, I can't find an archive of the article as it was published.

I dunno. I think the statement is probably actionable defamation, but it's pretty close to the edge. It'll probably come down to the actual lawyering. Well, that, and whether Jones or Wu can manage to make themselves seem sympathetic to any human being on the jury.

Usually sites like that say when they updated the article or when the original article was published

 

[teriyakiburns]

Usually sites like that say when they updated the article or when the original article was published

Except when they stealth update.

 

[I can't imagine]

Usually sites like that say when they updated the article or when the original article was published

Right. If you look at the top of the article, below the headline, it says: "Updated 11:20 am EDT, Thursday, August 22, 2019". Wu tweeted the article in mid-June.

I must've looked for the wrong page before on archive.org, though, since I did find an archive from June 17, which does say,

"The law firm representing the families of the 2012 mass shooting, stated in court documents filed Monday they have contacted the FBI after discovering child porn in electronic files Jones recently turned over to the Sandy Hook families as a result of their lawsuit against him for calling the tragedy a hoax."

The title also says "Lawyers: Alex Jones sent child porn to Sandy Hook victims families". I think it's safe to assume that the people at CT Post realized that needed correction since it was clearly inaccurate, given that they changed it. I'd guess that probably works in Wu's favor. The death threat part is still a bit dodgy, since he did arguably make death threats, though the target directed was incorrectly identified by Brianna Wu in the tweet.