In regards to Alex Jones getting gouged to hell via malicious prosecution in an attempt to bankrupt him, I was wondering if he actually said sandy hook was some sort of hoax or if he simply made crisis actor allegations?
Comments (16)
sorted by:
It doesn't matter. Both should be protected speech. Disagreeing with the media has now been effectively criminalized.
Absolutely. Jones was successfully sued for billions in a transparent establishment effort to silence him permanently because he hurt a bunch of people's feelings.
It's a conspiracy theory that developed which posited that the entire thing could've been faked. Alex Jones isn't the first one to come up with it either, he just happened to be the loudest one saying it, and was already a controversial and unpopular public figure.
I personally don't think it really matters either way at this point. The support pushing to silence him had little to do with the one case example. Instead it was used as an excuse to silence him in general. And that's the real ethical concern, the deliberate and collaborative effort to target and try to bankrupt him.
And I say this regardless of whether or not I think he's a little off his rocker. Hells, I'd even be open to the possible argument that maybe some of his rantings MIGHT create a negative environment for his nuttier regular viewers. But I still wouldn't find that as justification for the tactics employed against him, especially given the level of hypocrisy employed by those involved, who we know are almost certainly connected with left-wing media.
I used to listen to him, and I think the whole "crazy conspiracy guy" thing was mostly just a meme. He was more of a libertarian/patriot guy who called out things like media bias or the governments using false flags to infringe on peoples rights.
I think his cancelling isn't just about targeting him specifically, its more about making him into an example to condition people into thinking that free or fair speech is a danger that must be stopped otherwise it leads to people getting hurt somehow.
Oh I generally agree. Like seeing him on Joe Rogan a few times you could tell how he was having almost too much fun with it, especially when he was trying to find some way to troll/torment Joe.
And in his early years, he would've found himself popular with some of the anti-war and anti-neocon left-wing sorts from back during that era.
And I generally agree, I don't think it's him or what he was saying specifically that made him such a tempting target. Besides the message it sent, I think it was almost personal, because of the kind of "loud" and anti-establishment sort that he represented and how the MSM and the elite have grown increasingly annoyed by people like him. Essentially, they wanted to bloody someone's nose, and he was the easiest gazelle they could pounce on.
I found him in the late 90s and that's the sort of left-winger I was at the time so he resonated pretty well with me.
Yup, same here. It's still so very bizarre how everything's played out since way back then.
He got baited in a radio talk segment saying that it might be when a caller in said it was a hoax. He has apologised but they ignore that part.
The real reason they hit him so hard is he was looking at everything AROUND the event like government stealing funds meant for security locks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ir4sWOPEdM can't imagine why he would.
He did.
Very naive of him to think that the government would fake a mass shooting instead of killing innocent people.
"I don't think Alex Jones is right about Sandy Hook."
"You mean you believe it was a random mass shooting right?"
😐
"Right?"
Even this daft opinion doesn't justify the action taken against him.
That's a matter of appeals.
There's life and then there's courts.
He did, there is old clips of his show on Bitchute with him saying it.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a distinction without a difference in this context?