It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sandy Hook families win court victory against Alex Jones, can review InfoWars financials

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
You continue to make things up because your argument that the Govt has be part of a defamation case...


The Constitution only prevents the government from curtailing your free speech.


Incorrect. The constitution prevents the Govt from passing any law to impinge on the free speech of ALL citizens, whether those citizens work for the govt or not. You continually misinterpret the 1st Amendment. Starnge since it is so clear.

The entire, long storied, debate about the conflcts between the 1st Amendment and Defamation laws came about precisely because the Govt DID pass a law in violation of the 1st Amendment. The considered way around this was to allow Defemation laws to stand, whilst ensuring the 1st Amendment was paid due consideration.




posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Incorrect. The constitution prevents the Govt from passing any law to impinge on the free speech of ALL citizens...


Wrong. Multiple laws have been passed that were upheld by the Supreme Court that dispel your misguided notion of unlimited free speech.

Including those covering defamation.



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Incorrect. The constitution prevents the Govt from passing any law to impinge on the free speech of ALL citizens...


Wrong. Multiple laws have been passed that were upheld by the Supreme Court that dispel your misguided notion of unlimited free speech.

Including those covering defamation.


There is no view being argued about unlimited free speech. You keep shifting the point of focus because you know you are wrong. That much is obvious.

The words are plain and simple.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


That you believe that the first amendment does not apply to people if they work in the public sector is truly astounding. Almost as bad as your claim that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to any citizen if the Govt is not involved. Wow.

edit on 16/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is no view being argued about unlimited free speech.


You keep saying 'no law'. Guess what? There's laws and the Supreme Court upheld them.



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is no view being argued about unlimited free speech.


You keep saying 'no law'. Guess what? There's laws and the Supreme Court upheld them.


Heh?
You've now turned into a Monty Python sketch.

The 1st Amendment is clear in that the Govt can 'pass no law...'. The very reason you have been wrong from the start is that defamation laws do conflict to the 1st Amendment. The SC never said that they did not. Like I said, the SC debated the conflict and they upheld the defamation laws BUT on the basis that proper consideration was given to the 1st. It's why, again, the defendent in a defamation suit has the upper hand and the bar is high for the claimant.

It's not complicated, but I get the obfuscation. You can't stand being wrong or being called out for it. Tough.

edit on 16/1/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
The 1st Amendment is clear in that the Govt can 'pass no law...'.


They have and those laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court.


The very reason you have been wrong from the start is that defamation laws do conflict to the 1st Amendment.


Which is why they still exist, right?



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 09:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2019 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They still exist, but Judges must pay due consideration to the 1st Amendment when assessing defamation. As per SC. Like i said its really not complicated.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Roku Ditches Alex Jones and InfoWars Following Intense Backlash

Fantastic. He can focus on his own website now.


Roku added that it didn’t have any financial ties with Jones or InfoWars, nor any commercial or advertising relationship. It further noted that “to our knowledge” Infowars had not violated Roku’s content policies, but that “if we determine a channel violates these policies, it will be removed.”

Within hours, however, the streaming service faced intense backlash across social media and appeared to reverse its decision. “After the InfoWars channel became available,” the company wrote on its Twitter page, “we heard from concerned parties and have determined that the channel should be removed from our platform. Deletion from the channel store and platform has begun and will be completed shortly.”





edit on 17-1-2019 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 06:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
They still exist...


Thanks, but we all know that over here.


...but Judges must pay due consideration to the 1st Amendment when assessing defamation.


Doesn't make them anywhere near the point where 'One could argue that defemantion laws themselves are in violation of the 1st amendment'.







 
23
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join