All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2022 - Lionel Nation
19:47
What They Don’t Tell You About the Alex Jones Lawsuits
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man Safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man Underground Safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin.
Dirty Man Safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your dirty man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
The Alex Jones cases have been nothing short of fascinating.
If only they were explained to you from the juridical point of view, from the legal point of view.
If only people spent more time than, let's say, a minute and a half going beyond The usual, he's a conspiracy theorist, he's a nut, he's a lunatic, he's a whatever.
Now, Alex Jones incurs the wrath or the admiration, depending upon who you are, and he's always been like this.
And I am telling you right off the bat that in terms of the contribution of his show, In the pantheon of information platforms, the contribution will be historic.
You know, full disclosure, I was on his show.
He's had a veritable bevy, a cacophony, a melange of people throughout the years.
And I'm not going to go into his...
Personality type.
That's not the purpose of this.
But I want you to think about what's happening.
You will often hear, in fact exclusively hear, that Alex Jones was found guilty of defamation.
Liable.
He libeled people.
You will hear other people, and I've heard one commentator, I'm not going to mention the name, say, he was merely giving an opinion.
Well, That may or may not be true.
But what the problem is, that when one wants to address this, you've got to deal with the fact that there was a default.
The court ruled twice that there was a default.
That Mr. Jones did not comply initially with various demands, various...
Orders for either financial information or whatever, but for whatever reason, I don't want to litigate that again, but he did not comply, so he defaulted.
It's as though he never answered the complaint.
And when you default, you basically admit all of the well-plead allegations.
It's like when you get a speeding ticket and you pay the ticket, you basically admit to everything.
That's why in some jurisdictions, if you're involved in an act, So we never really got down to the issue of this.
These were damage hearings where...
Basically, the liability part had already been established through the default, and now it's how much money do you owe?
How much money?
What money is commensurate?
What amount of money compensates the individuals who now, by virtue of this default, have won?
And you can use a host of...
Reasonings and calculus, permutations and the like, or I should say the permutations of the calculus of assessing damages.
But there's two things I want you to understand.
Two.
This is not merely an opinion case.
If this was an opinion, Opinion case.
A true opinion case.
And you were to say that in your opinion, we never landed on the moon.
There never was a Vietnam War.
John Kennedy is alive in Peoria.
Whatever!
Whatever your opinion is, that's crazy.
As lunatic as you might think it is, it doesn't matter.
It's your opinion, and opinions are protected.
Sacrosanct, because libel and defamation is a statement of fact.
You're saying this is a fact that defames, that injures.
Let's just throw this opinion part of it.
Yes, there were opinions in here.
This is the thing which is the most important.
In fact, I'm going to bring up two issues.
One, this really is about incitement.
Did you hear, again, remember, we never got to a trial.
It was a default.
We never heard that which provided the bases of the putative victims.
We don't know.
But let's assume the following set of facts, okay?
Somebody says to you, or the jury proves, that not only did Mr. Jones say that these shootings did not occur, that it was false flag, that it was contrived and manufactured by virtue of an attempt to create A fear
on the part of the country that would make them, via their anger of this allegedly contrived and orchestrated non-event, utilize that anger to seek to repeal the Second Amendment, to take punitive and drastic measures to disenable, to disgorge our ability to possess firearms pursuant to the Second Amendment.
Okay, fine.
*Rolling*
Now we're getting into some other things.
So when does the defamation cause problems?
Well, remember, again, I keep saying this is all mooch because it was defaulted.
But if I say, not only did you, Mr. Williams, not only did you conspire with the rest of these family members to We couldn't concoct and portray this falsified shooting, but that there was no event that ever occurred.
You didn't have a son or a daughter who was killed.
It never happened.
Now we're getting into something.
I'm saying that you...
So my opinion goes from I don't think it happened to I don't think it happened and you were a part of this cabal, this conspiracy to create this.
It's like a conspiracy theory from a conspiracy theorist.
Now we're getting into different areas.
We're also getting into this other aspect that we call the intentional infliction of emotional distress where Not only do I want to just defame you, but I want to say something that just goes into your soul and just causes...
But we're going into an area that says, I want to cause this excessive, excruciating emotional distress on your part.
But then, if we go into another area that says, you were a part of a cover-up.
You were a part of a false flag.
You were.
Then it goes from opinion to me making a defamatory statement, a statement that is not true, about you.
But here's the issue, which I think is the most important and the most ignored, specifically by the reporting.
What I find the most interesting is the notion of incitement.
Now, incitement is called an inchoate crime, or inchoate, depending upon where you're from, I-N-C-H-O-A-T-E, solicitation attempt incitement.
What I found to be the most compelling, the most interesting, had it been alleged during a regular trial, was the fact that these family members not only had to go through this alleged trauma, Of having the death of their child basically denied or what have you.
But, but, that people came to their homes, it was alleged, and they said, you were a part of this, and you were a part of this false flag, and you, and by name.
Now again, I don't want to argue whether this was even true, whether it happened, whether it was proved.
Could have been proof?
We don't know.
But I'm intrigued by this.
Now let me give you a statute, which is most interesting.
Listen to this one.
This is the aiding and abetting statute.
And aiding and abetting, counseling, procuring, hiring, but also inciting, as in inciting a riot.
Listen to this.
Whoever, this is a federal statute, which...
It doesn't really apply, but it gives you kind of a guideline.
This is 18 U.S.C.
373, which I've cited for you.
However, with intent that another person engage in conduct, constituting a felony that has an element to use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the property or against the person of another, In violation of the laws of the United States.
You understand this?
Whoever with the intent that another person engage in some kind of felony.
So, if Alex Jones is proved with the intent of engaging someone else to use or threaten to use violence or physical force against someone else, and And,
under circumstances, strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be in prison.
Don't worry about the present.
So basically, what this says is, if it can be shown That not only were you defamatory, not only did you say something which was wrong, which basically was defamatory, accusing me of being a part of some cover-up for some manufactured event, but you got other people, you riled them up.
And why is that also interesting, which I'll discuss later?
This is the January 6th case.
This is what people are saying.
This is what people are alleging that Donald Trump did.
We'll get to that later.
But that he incited them.
Do you hear how this is?
You're going to be hearing more of this.
So eventually it's not going to be enough that you said something that was false, said something that was untoward, said something that was rude, opprobrious, horrible, but that you incited people.
You aroused them to act accordingly.
Funny, Remember when there was that spate of individuals going to the homes of Supreme Court justices?
Nothing ever came of that.
I thought that for sure.
Well, there was a particular statute that dealt with that individually, that dealt primarily with that.
But, but, this opens up a fascinating new idea that you can deny something is occurring, and then, Be shut down when you remove it from a mere opinion to something further.
Let me give you an example.
As you know, it is alleged by many people, this is a subject matter I am not versed on or with, at least the allegations or the bases of such, but there are many people who believe, or a significant number who believe, that there was no moon landing.
None.
Never occurred.
Now, If somebody goes on, let's say, a public platform and says, I don't believe this occurred.
Well, if that's an opinion, so what?
But, let's take it a step further.
And I think that Buzz Aldrin or Michael Collins or Neil Armstrong, if alive, obviously, that they were a part of this.
This is a lie.
And maybe the next time you see them, you might want to bring it up to their attention.
Now, We've gone from something which is interesting, a mere opinion, a mere disbelief, which is up to you, to defamatory statements, meaning that you, Neil Armstrong, were a part of this conspiracy to obscure, to falsify this event.
But moreover, if you were to run into him, or this is where he is, you let him know.
And let's say somebody threatens him.
Now we're into the incitement case.
Now we're into incitement.
Now, to make things even more interesting, there was a case, which I will further cite for you because I know you love case citation, that deals with the idea of incitement.
For example, that of Brandenburg.
Brandenburg against Ohio was a 1969 case.
And it held that the right of free speech was abridged.
The court said that a two-pronged test must be used to evaluate speech acts.
Number one, speech can be prohibited if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent, some people say imminent, but it's imminent lawless action, and it is likely to incite.
It is likely to incite or produce such action.
So what I am saying right now, and what I think we should pay attention to in the future, and by the way, please forgive me for some of these weird jump cuts and interruptions.
It's a very long story.
But not only are we going to see one day, I predict, allegations of defamation, but defamation that is being used to take an otherwise safe, if you will, opinion.
But by virtue of some additional language stated by the declarant to make it an incitement case and throw in some intentional infliction of emotional distress regarding a political or an event of note that involves people but that you have in essence directed or alleged were a part of some cover-up.
See what I'm saying?
Oh, it's fascinating.
You may not like Alex Jones.
That is your right.
You may find him boorish and problematic and crazy and demented.
That is your right.
But what we are seeing in addition to the issue of liking or not liking is a very sincere and a very real dare I say potential attack and a limitation on our most precious First Amendment right to speak freely though sometimes recklessly
sometimes based upon misinformation sometimes stupidly but nonetheless Guaranteed.
The First Amendment does not guarantee intelligent speech.
It doesn't guarantee robust discussions of rational thought.
It guarantees speech.
So just think about what I'm saying.
Think about it.
Don't apply it vis-a-vis any particular actor.
But just think about this.
And ask yourself, Is there any reason for alarm?
I say there is.
If we don't watch this.
Now my friends, thank you so much for watching this.
Please like this video.
Please subscribe to the channel.
And please, I want to hear your thoughts, your ideas.
What do you think about this?
Your beautiful thoughts.
▲
Export Selection