I don't know exactly what happened at Sandy Hook, but I remain suspicious of the tale presented to the public. Too many holes. Yes, I am sure the Connecticut State Police fixed all the oddities. That's the way it always works. Like Oswald's magic bullet. Somehow all the peculiarities are cleaned up. But, if you were to bother to take all significant official statements and assign probability estimates to them, then multiply, you'd get a number that would say, 'Virtually no chance all these assertions are true.'
I have noticed that a number of strong investigative pages on Sandy Hook are no longer extant. Why not? It seems obvious that the Deep State (AKA Powers that Be) is using the label "offensive speech" as a pretext for deleting truthful speech that rattles the oligarchs.
A lawyer for Alex Jones makes a potent case for free speech in an editorial that appeared in the Hartford Courant. I hope the Courant sees the importance of this op-ed and permits it to be disseminated freely.
By NORM PATTIS
SPECIAL TO HARTFORD COURANT
APR 05, 2019 | 12:22 PM
You’ve probably heard by now that Alex Jones of Infowars plans to defend himself against charges that he defamed the families of folks killed in the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012 by claiming some form of psychosis.
You heard wrong. You swallowed a meme, becoming the very thing you say you scorn — a dupe to a hateful, half-baked piece of misinformation.
I know this because I represent Alex Jones in three suits pending against him in Connecticut. He faces a related suit defended by separate counsel in Texas.
Alex Jones is not psychotic. He plans to defend himself on the same grounds that protect those who take such joy in ridiculing him: the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
In a video deposition posted online by plaintiffs’ lawyers, he says he was influenced by “something like psychosis” when he opined that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Alex Jones
Jones haters seized on this hazy metaphor like starving children diving at crumbs.
The Sandy Hook lawsuits allege that Jones defamed the families by denying the mass shootings took place. For those of us who live in Connecticut, it’s hard to take seriously the denial of a reality you lived through. We lost family and friends at Sandy Hook. We saw colleagues grieve.
Let’s set the record straight: Alex Jones believes that there was a massacre at Sandy Hook. He entertained the possibility that it was all a hoax when events were fresh. He hosted people who wondered aloud why the FBI would claim there were no homicides in Sandy Hook the very year 26 people were murdered.2 Just today I received an email from a lost soul claiming it’s all a hoax.
Jones never encouraged people to visit the homes of the surviving family members. He did not himself state that the deaths of children were faked by families seeking financial gain or elevated status as spokesmen for gun control. These assertions about Jones have become urban legend — repeated so often they are taken as true. We are eager to test these assertions in open court and to let a fair-minded jury evaluate the actual evidence — if the cases ever actually get to the point of a jury trial.
The cases should be dismissed. Alex Jones hasn’t defamed anyone; he has engaged in extreme speech, a form of speech we’ve cherished since the days of the penny press.
The truth of the matter is Jones has a right to his opinions, no matter how outlandish. That he discomfited the suffering is truly unfortunate. But our newfound instinct to make symbols of survivors in our roiling political debates about such things as gun control transforms them into public figures in the contested terrain of political speech. Declaring these folks to be off-limits is a misuse of pathos. Victims used to mourn in private.
Folks should spend a lot less time taking shots at Alex Jones and more time wondering what makes Jones possible. It’s the same sort of question Trump haters ought to ask. Millions of voters and listeners flock to these men not because they are crazy but because they offer alternatives to mainstream narratives that fail to resonate with folks who have little to gain from tuning into CNN, MSNBC or reading the pages of The New York Times.
Before I chose to represent Alex Jones, I ignored him. His views were too extreme for me. He wasn’t a figure I hated; he just didn’t matter. He was the town crier warning the end is neigh.
Now I defend him from you — you, who want him silenced — because you scare me more than he does.
There is no mob quite so terrifying as a self-righteous mob. Suppressing speech because it offends a majority of folks gives the power to censor speech. We’re close to banning speech simply because it is hateful. Even Mark Zuckerberg now wants new legislation to limit speech. We’ve gone from wanting information to be free to fearing the heterodox.
What motivates hate is fear. Alex Jones and his listeners are afraid of what this country is becoming. You are afraid of Alex Jones and his outlandish conspiracy theories. You’re more alike than you think.
Fight your differences out in the marketplace of ideas. But let’s not fall down the bottomless pit of censorship. Alex Jones is not psychotic, and neither, I suspect, are you, although some days I’m not so sure about either of you.
Norm Pattis is an attorney based in New Haven.
1. According to David Mikkelson of Snopes.com,
I have noticed that a number of strong investigative pages on Sandy Hook are no longer extant. Why not? It seems obvious that the Deep State (AKA Powers that Be) is using the label "offensive speech" as a pretext for deleting truthful speech that rattles the oligarchs.
A lawyer for Alex Jones makes a potent case for free speech in an editorial that appeared in the Hartford Courant. I hope the Courant sees the importance of this op-ed and permits it to be disseminated freely.
By NORM PATTIS
SPECIAL TO HARTFORD COURANT
APR 05, 2019 | 12:22 PM
You’ve probably heard by now that Alex Jones of Infowars plans to defend himself against charges that he defamed the families of folks killed in the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012 by claiming some form of psychosis.
You heard wrong. You swallowed a meme, becoming the very thing you say you scorn — a dupe to a hateful, half-baked piece of misinformation.
I know this because I represent Alex Jones in three suits pending against him in Connecticut. He faces a related suit defended by separate counsel in Texas.
Alex Jones is not psychotic. He plans to defend himself on the same grounds that protect those who take such joy in ridiculing him: the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
In a video deposition posted online by plaintiffs’ lawyers, he says he was influenced by “something like psychosis” when he opined that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Alex Jones
Jones haters seized on this hazy metaphor like starving children diving at crumbs.
The Sandy Hook lawsuits allege that Jones defamed the families by denying the mass shootings took place. For those of us who live in Connecticut, it’s hard to take seriously the denial of a reality you lived through. We lost family and friends at Sandy Hook. We saw colleagues grieve.
Let’s set the record straight: Alex Jones believes that there was a massacre at Sandy Hook. He entertained the possibility that it was all a hoax when events were fresh. He hosted people who wondered aloud why the FBI would claim there were no homicides in Sandy Hook the very year 26 people were murdered.2 Just today I received an email from a lost soul claiming it’s all a hoax.
Jones never encouraged people to visit the homes of the surviving family members. He did not himself state that the deaths of children were faked by families seeking financial gain or elevated status as spokesmen for gun control. These assertions about Jones have become urban legend — repeated so often they are taken as true. We are eager to test these assertions in open court and to let a fair-minded jury evaluate the actual evidence — if the cases ever actually get to the point of a jury trial.
The cases should be dismissed. Alex Jones hasn’t defamed anyone; he has engaged in extreme speech, a form of speech we’ve cherished since the days of the penny press.
The truth of the matter is Jones has a right to his opinions, no matter how outlandish. That he discomfited the suffering is truly unfortunate. But our newfound instinct to make symbols of survivors in our roiling political debates about such things as gun control transforms them into public figures in the contested terrain of political speech. Declaring these folks to be off-limits is a misuse of pathos. Victims used to mourn in private.
Folks should spend a lot less time taking shots at Alex Jones and more time wondering what makes Jones possible. It’s the same sort of question Trump haters ought to ask. Millions of voters and listeners flock to these men not because they are crazy but because they offer alternatives to mainstream narratives that fail to resonate with folks who have little to gain from tuning into CNN, MSNBC or reading the pages of The New York Times.
Before I chose to represent Alex Jones, I ignored him. His views were too extreme for me. He wasn’t a figure I hated; he just didn’t matter. He was the town crier warning the end is neigh.
Now I defend him from you — you, who want him silenced — because you scare me more than he does.
There is no mob quite so terrifying as a self-righteous mob. Suppressing speech because it offends a majority of folks gives the power to censor speech. We’re close to banning speech simply because it is hateful. Even Mark Zuckerberg now wants new legislation to limit speech. We’ve gone from wanting information to be free to fearing the heterodox.
What motivates hate is fear. Alex Jones and his listeners are afraid of what this country is becoming. You are afraid of Alex Jones and his outlandish conspiracy theories. You’re more alike than you think.
Fight your differences out in the marketplace of ideas. But let’s not fall down the bottomless pit of censorship. Alex Jones is not psychotic, and neither, I suspect, are you, although some days I’m not so sure about either of you.
Norm Pattis is an attorney based in New Haven.
1. According to David Mikkelson of Snopes.com,
As it turns out, a recordkeeping anomaly of sorts is at the root of the FBI report’s dissonant statistics for the Sandy Hook massacre. If you followed news of the incident at the time, you may recall that Connecticut State Police (not local city or town police) managed the crime scene in the hours, days, and weeks after the event in Newtown. Accordingly, the Sandy Hook Elementary victims were included in Connecticut’s statewide records, but they were not tallied as crimes of any description in Newtown in 2012. Rather, the deaths were classified under “State Police Misc.” in separate records.I had never heard about this particular claim, but it seems as though the Snopes explanation is as weird as the original assertion. In any case, I want to underscore that though Snopes is sometimes correct, it has a record of invariably backing the government's conspiracy theories and accounts versus those of critics.
Although the state’s murder total was 146 that year, only 110 of those deaths were assigned to specific local jurisdictions in the FBI report. The statewide tally of 146 includes the 27 victims of the Sandy Hook massacre.
No comments:
Post a Comment