AJ does realize that JA would have to show monetary damages. According to him and the idiots that buoy up that disgusting place, the community is supporting it and it's never done better ... how can that be if they're suing? They'd also have to prove that what AJ said was responsible for whatever hit JA's reputation suffered and the scores of INAPPROPRIATE, LEWD, OBSCENE PHOTOS AND CAPTIONING THAT HE HIMSELF MADE AND POSTED FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION! Then there's his magazine ... really Alex? Re-ally?
You don't have to prove monetary damages for per se defamation claims. Defamation that affects your business is per se defamation.
"Examples of libel per se are statements that: (i) relate to the person's business or profession to the person's detriment; (ii) falsely claim that the person committed a crime of moral turpitude; (iii) imputes unchastity on the person; or (iv) claim that the person suffers from a loathsome disease." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel_per_se
Categories of Untrue Statements
Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore defamatory per se. Typically, if the statements do not fall into one of these categories the plaintiff is required to prove his damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed. The four general categories are:
Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity
Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease
Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession
A public figure must show damages. JA continuallty posted LEWD, OBSCENE, PEDOPHILIA-LACED IMAGES AND COMMENTS. To use your example, if someone continually posted about having an infectious disease, and then someone picked up on it, it really wouldn't be defamation, would it? Then the preponderance of evidence would have to be shown as to how this person was adversely affected and that would rely on proving monetary damages, of which, there is none.
I do not think Alex Jones committed defamation at all, so there shouldn't be damages. I'm just saying that in per se defamation cases you don't prove your damages. So if Alex Jones were to lose that case he would be screwed. This would be per se defamation if it was defamation at all, which it isn't but I'm not holding my breath for a fair result in a DC court or a federal court or even a Texas court for Alex Jones. Courts operate based on bribery a lot more than you think. That is not my example, I just posted the link so you could read about this. I know about this from law school but I'm not an attorney. I'm positive Alex Jones was both threatened with a lawsuit and personally physically threatened.
If he were threatened, he should take it up with the police. And, again, a public figure must prove monetary damages. JA is a public figure. He was listed as one of the 50 most influential people in Washington, etc. What you're saying is not applicable here.
Well, you don't know until you get in the courtroom. If it's a jury trial, I think AJ would have aced it. Think about those photos! Any reasonable person looking at those photos would have assumed something was going on -- that's what JA DID TO HIMSELF! What AJ did is mild in comparison.
view the rest of the comments →
quantokitty ago
AJ does realize that JA would have to show monetary damages. According to him and the idiots that buoy up that disgusting place, the community is supporting it and it's never done better ... how can that be if they're suing? They'd also have to prove that what AJ said was responsible for whatever hit JA's reputation suffered and the scores of INAPPROPRIATE, LEWD, OBSCENE PHOTOS AND CAPTIONING THAT HE HIMSELF MADE AND POSTED FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION! Then there's his magazine ... really Alex? Re-ally?
cakeoflightylight ago
You don't have to prove monetary damages for per se defamation claims. Defamation that affects your business is per se defamation. "Examples of libel per se are statements that: (i) relate to the person's business or profession to the person's detriment; (ii) falsely claim that the person committed a crime of moral turpitude; (iii) imputes unchastity on the person; or (iv) claim that the person suffers from a loathsome disease." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel_per_se
Categories of Untrue Statements
Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore defamatory per se. Typically, if the statements do not fall into one of these categories the plaintiff is required to prove his damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed. The four general categories are:
Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession
http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html
quantokitty ago
A public figure must show damages. JA continuallty posted LEWD, OBSCENE, PEDOPHILIA-LACED IMAGES AND COMMENTS. To use your example, if someone continually posted about having an infectious disease, and then someone picked up on it, it really wouldn't be defamation, would it? Then the preponderance of evidence would have to be shown as to how this person was adversely affected and that would rely on proving monetary damages, of which, there is none.
cakeoflightylight ago
I do not think Alex Jones committed defamation at all, so there shouldn't be damages. I'm just saying that in per se defamation cases you don't prove your damages. So if Alex Jones were to lose that case he would be screwed. This would be per se defamation if it was defamation at all, which it isn't but I'm not holding my breath for a fair result in a DC court or a federal court or even a Texas court for Alex Jones. Courts operate based on bribery a lot more than you think. That is not my example, I just posted the link so you could read about this. I know about this from law school but I'm not an attorney. I'm positive Alex Jones was both threatened with a lawsuit and personally physically threatened.
quantokitty ago
If he were threatened, he should take it up with the police. And, again, a public figure must prove monetary damages. JA is a public figure. He was listed as one of the 50 most influential people in Washington, etc. What you're saying is not applicable here.
cakeoflightylight ago
NO, the public figure must prove actual malice. Not monetary damages. http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-actual-malice-in-defamation-law/
quantokitty ago
That would be even harder to prove! He could just say he repeated what was on JA's Instagram account.
cakeoflightylight ago
Yes I know. But the courts don't always care about facts.
quantokitty ago
Well, you don't know until you get in the courtroom. If it's a jury trial, I think AJ would have aced it. Think about those photos! Any reasonable person looking at those photos would have assumed something was going on -- that's what JA DID TO HIMSELF! What AJ did is mild in comparison.