Legal victory for Alex Jones's targets

[lpetrich]

Families of Sandy Hook shooting victims win legal victory in lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones - ABC News

Six families of victims killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School won a legal victory Friday in their fight against controversial radio and internet personality Alex Jones.

A judge in Connecticut has granted the families’ discovery requests, allowing them access to, among other things, Infowars’ internal marketing and financial documents.

...
According to the statement, the plaintiffs allege a "years-long campaign of abusive and outrageous false statements in which Jones and the other defendants have developed, amplified and perpetuated claims that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged and that the 26 families who lost loved ones that day are paid actors who faked their relative's deaths."

They hope to show that Alex Jones and his Infowars employees have built their business around making claims that they know are unsupportable or even just plain false, making those claims because doing so gets them an audience, thus getting income for their business.

 

[blastula]

I hope this goes to a jury.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Alex Jones had only one moment I enjoyed. It was when he trolled the Young Turks during the run up to the 2016 election and they had a complete meltdown. That was funny.

The rest of Jones' stuff is just plain garbage. It always has been.

 

[untermensche]

Fundraising by telling lies.

Isn't that every US presidential election?

Every US election for dog catcher?

 

[AirPoh]

Fundraising by telling lies.

Isn't that every US presidential election?

Every US election for dog catcher?

Every televangelist?

 

[untermensche]

Fundraising by telling lies.

Isn't that every US presidential election?

Every US election for dog catcher?

Every televangelist?

No doubt.

 

[Elixir]

Is the "everybody else does it" defense viable in this case?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Make Alex Jones squeal like a piggy. Make the bastard pay. Hit him HARD. To make this sort of crap hard to do for future demagogues.

 

[untermensche]

Is the "everybody else does it" defense viable in this case?

Why should it not be?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is the "everybody else does it" defense viable in this case?

Unter explained to me that his moral premise goes something like this: It doesn't matter if an action is good or bad, as long as everyone can partake in it equally.

From his point of view, "everybody else does it" is a morally viable defense.

 

[untermensche]

Is the "everybody else does it" defense viable in this case?

Unter explained to me that his moral premise goes something like this: It doesn't matter if an action is good or bad, as long as everyone can partake in it equally.

From his point of view, "everybody else does it" is a morally viable defense.

Show me where I said that?

That is something you invented.

What I actually said, and other's can judge your ability to understand things, is with any moral system the rules are the same for all, if something is permitted for one person to do then it is permitted for all, if something is forbidden for one it is forbidden for all.

The rules are the same for all.

Any morality must have that as a feature.

And usually it is unnecessary to say this pertains to autonomous freely acting adults.

That is an assumption of any morality.

It is assumed people are autonomous and can make free choices.

In this case if it is legal for some people to lie to raise funds it morally should be legal for all to lie to raise funds.

But what I believe is it should be illegal for all people to lie to raise funds.

Including politicians and preachers.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is the "everybody else does it" defense viable in this case?

Unter explained to me that his moral premise goes something like this: It doesn't matter if an action is good or bad, as long as everyone can partake in it equally.

From his point of view, "everybody else does it" is a morally viable defense.

Show me where I said that?

That is something you invented.

What I actually said, and other's can judge your ability to understand things, is with any moral system the rules are the same for all, if something is permitted for one person to do then it is permitted for all, if something is forbidden for one it is forbidden for all.

The rules are the same for all.

Any morality must have that as a feature.

It is really amusing when you answer your own question.

And usually it is unnecessary to say this pertains to autonomous freely acting adults.

When you're a participant in the discussion it become necessary to include that.

 

[untermensche]

That is void of content.

You have shown nothing but ignorance and a propensity to lie.

Show me where I say this stupidity.

It doesn't matter if an action is good or bad, as long as everyone can partake in it equally.

What I say is if an action is ruled good then all can do it and if it is ruled bad then none can do it.

You have twisted this and lied about my position.

I never ever make the claim it does not matter if an action is good or bad.

Some think dictatorship is bad in government but good in the workplace.

They are immoral and hypocrites.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I asked you what your core moral principle is.

You said "everyone can partake equally."

If that isn't your core moral principle, you should have said something else. Until then, if A -> B and B -> C, then you matter how much you "didn't say that", A -> C.

 

[untermensche]

You just put something in quotes I never said in the context you have presented it.

What I said was the core of any moral scheme is universality. Not my scheme ANY scheme.

The same rules for everybody.

If something is deemed moral to do then all can do it.

If something is deemed immoral to do then none can do it.

If the US can attack some other nation that is not attacking anyone then all nations can do the same.

The same rules for everybody. That is morality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So I was right. No matter how morally repugnant anyone else may call an action, if it is equally open to all then it is morally acceptable to you.

 

[untermensche]

So I was right. No matter how morally repugnant anyone else may call an action, if it is equally open to all then it is morally acceptable to you.

That is not my position.

My position is that in a moral scheme if something is permitted for one it is permitted for all and if it is forbidden for one it is forbidden for all.

If something is morally repugnant, like a terrorist attack of Iraq, it should be forbidden for all.

None should not be allowed to do it.

The US should not have been allowed to launch a terrorist attack of Iraq.

Unfortunately there was no power to stop the madness.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know, your position is "All A is B" and is "All B is C" but is most certainly not "All A is C". Under no circumstances may I dare say your position is "All A is C".

 

[untermensche]

My position is if you have a moral scheme for adults it must include universality as a feature.

It is a core feature.

No moral scheme for adults says that some adults can do things others cannot.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, I agree, it is absolutely your position that "I never said All A is C".