Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Alex Jones’s Infowars Files For Bankruptcy" video.

Well, it wasn't staged, and this is exactly how these issues should play out: in court. Not by corporations cancelling people, and placing prior restraints on free speech.
5
He spread defamation and inflicted emotional distress on the surviving families of dead first graders in a school massacre. What has to happen?
5
@unaffiliated0437 Conspiracies do exist. Check who has been prosecuted under RICO, for a start.
3
@unaffiliated0437 Precisely the opposite.
3
@unaffiliated0437 What is confusing you? I don't understand.
3
@denniscarsner I think it probably did come from a lab accident. I oppose silencing Alex Jones. Censorship and civil suits for defamation are two different animals. The first violates his rights, and our right to hear all views. The second does not.
2
@ihategoogleplus5308 Exactly.
2
@lydialutz My goodness. Where to begin? No. It's futile. You're unaware of the history of the term and its recent use, or what the central characteristic of a baseless, often conspiratorial, explanation is: it grossly violates Occam's Razor, and new iterations of it are typically grosser violations. In other words, in response to contrary evidence, it gets more and more complex. I still remember when George Bush didn't want to answer an inconvenient question and his eyes lit up, a smirk formed on his face, he pursed his lips, and said, " that's a conspiracy theory." Magic words. No further thought needed. Your government thanks you for continuing to push this "narrative." Narrative!! 🤣
2
No, not honest. Proven to be a liar about Sandy Hook in court, and intentionally inflicting the worst emotional distress upon vulnerable people that words can create. That said, HE should not be cancelled. HE retains his First Amendment rights. The (unprotected) defamation and abuse he dished out THIS time, he will pay for and is paying for.
1
@lydialutz P. S. If gerrymandering is out in the open, there is no conspiracy. If those poised to challenge the redistricting are promised some benenfit to shut up, THEN there is a conspiracy. Sheesh.
1
@lydialutz No, but that is one example of what may constitute a conspiracy, and yes, people enter into them for the purpose of gain that they can dissemble. Look up RICO and civil RICO. If an act is entirely legal, and comports with various open meetings laws and so forth that may apply, then it's not a predicate for a "conspiracy" under the usual meaning of the term. A "conspiracy in plain sight" does not exist.
1
@lydialutz Snowden makes the distinction I made, using slightly different words: he distinguishes between true and false conspiracies. Where did you place your focus, to end up misunderstanding that crucial distinction? He himself exposed an actual conspiracy, then became the object of baseless accusations of being part of a conspiracy himself. Does using the word make it sound too much like you're breaking bread with the disenfranchised, which could cause damage to your apparent status? "Conspiracy theory" = "I'm not rich?" = "Maybe I'd even vote for a Trump!" Er, NO.
1
@ihategoogleplus5308 Here's a quite viable conspiracy theory: "Intelgate," a term coined by Stephen F Cohen. See his talk at the 92nd Street Y. About 20 min. in, if you're impatient.
1
@Runaway Puppet You read his book, huh? Princeton and NYU prof, America's leading Russia scholar. At that talk, the man predicted this war. Days before it happened the current crop of pundits said there would be no invasion. Two years ago he refused to say there wouldn't be, put it at a strong maybe. Saw through the Steele dossier well before it was discredited and explained why he thought it was a fake and why it didn't even make sense. Well, anyway. He died last year. Those old intellectuals are gone.
1
@Runaway Puppet "nonsense," your response to me, was cryptic. I agree that's a reason to ask, or better yet, ignore. Anyway.
1
Anyone victimized by smear campaigns shouldn't just take it lying down. They sued, and should sue. It is their right. Not create twitter mobs, not ask major corporations to censor free speech, not beg Congress for new laws that curtail all our freedoms. Go to court, prove your case. Boom. Funny that Jimmy Dore is crystal clear on this point.
1
Why? In real courts, not Twitter mobs, AJ failed to prove his statements were true and not defamation. That said, he himself should not be censored.
1
@steviegbcool Great point! Plus really 🤣🤣!
1
Anyone victimized by smear campaigns shouldn't just take it lying down. They should sue! Not create twitter mobs, not ask major corporations to censor free speech, not beg Congress for new laws that curtail all our freedoms and that we don't need. They SHOULD got to court. That's what you do. Funny that none other than Jimmy Dore is crystal clear on this point.
1
P. S. It sure is their money now. 🤣
1
@Tj-mb7ch HA! But making money by tormenting the parents of first graders killed in a school massacre is an honest job! What do you say when the New York Times lies?? It's their money?
1
@Tj-mb7ch No. He tormented the families and smeared them. Simply discussing an outlandish conjecture is always protected by the First Amendment. Let's keep it that way. So Alex Jones countered the lying media by telling a bigger lie? And at whose expense? He didn't hurt the MSM, he hurt bereaved parents.
1
Corporate bankruptcy.
1
Alex Jones: Proven to be a liar about Sandy Hook in court, and intentionally inflicting the worst emotional distress upon vulnerable people that words can create. That said, HE should not be cancelled. HE retains his First Amendment rights. The (unprotected) defamation and abuse he dished out THIS time, he will pay for and is paying for. This is the stuff courts should decide, not Google, Twitter, FB, etc.
1
Anyone victimized by smear campaigns shouldn't just take it lying down. They should sue! Not create twitter mobs, not ask major corporations to censor free speech, not beg Congress for new laws that curtail all our freedoms. They SHOULD got to court. Funny that Jimmy Dore is crystal clear on this point.
1