Octopus Overlords

Daehawk wrote: In fact I told the wife to get me a membership to the NRA for my birthday later next year.

Roger Ebert wrote:The tragedy has dominated the airwaves this weekend, but the networks haven't dropped many regularly scheduled prime-time weekend shows to make way for breaking news coverage. By now, however, the Sunday morning TV news talks shows have assembled their expert "panels" to speculate about the reasons for the deaths of 26 murdered people, 20 of them in grade school.

Is this a heartless, cynical way to appoach Newtown? No doubt it is. In my opinion, the most useful way to "analyze" is to recall reactions to similar incidents in the past. I would like to quote the following words from an article by me, as follows:

"From his review of Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant', a fictionalized account of a Columbine-like school shooting, here's Roger Ebert on the media's behavior while reporting these kinds of events:

"Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?"

"The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

"The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

"In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them.

The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."

This is Ebert again, back in the present. I gather my point is what goes around, comes around.

If the days to come are for grieving the horrible loss of life in Connecticut, of school officials who died doing their job and of little children who had their lives cut tragically short, let us also resolve to make the days ahead ones of action.

I don't speak to a single cause or of unattainable goals. There will be plenty who make clarion calls to one specific course or another. What I'm talking about is actively engaging the world and the people around you, even more so than you already do. It could be a small gesture, like letting a car in front of you or dropping off some canned goods at a homeless shelter. It could be something personal, like reaching out to a family member or friend who needs your support -- even if it's tough to do so -- or simply letting the people close to you know how much you care about them. It could be getting involved with a group of people that tries to help others; it could be promoting a certain cause or action that you think will help make the world better. There are a million opportunities to do so -- we just have to be look for them, and make the effort to make them happen.

Why do any or all of this? Because the world gets darker every time we pull back from each other, become more afraid, become less pledged to the common good. It makes things like this at more of a risk to happen, regardless of all our efforts to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Because we need to do so, if only to say that our actions, our commitment to our basic humanity and decency to one another, is immensely greater than what evil can accomplish. Because that which unites us -- our universal goal for a better world, both for ourselves and for our children -- far outweighs any differences that might divide us. And because thoughts and prayers only take us so far, we need a real and active commitment through whatever we can afford to give, be it our time, money, effort or love, to create a better world.

So if you find moments where you can help, tiny things that you can do or even great ideas that you want to passionately pursue, go for it. Don't abdicate the world we live in to the madmen, where we all simply shake our heads and wonder why the world is going to hell. We have the power to try and change it, to shape it towards that which we like and of which we dream. So while we mourn the dead and console the bereaved, commit to doing something -- to doing anything -- to make that better world happen.

Nearly four years after tragedy struck Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the school is opening its doors to students again. But those doors, like the rest of the building, look a little different today than they did in 2012, when a shooting rampage killed 20 first-graders and six educators.

A new elementary school opened Monday in Newtown, replacing the Sandy Hook school that was torn down after the shooting. The replacement facility, which cost $50 million to build, stands on the same property as the old school, but bears little resemblance to its predecessor. The new building features three courtyards, study spaces designed to look like treehouses, and a moat-like rain garden, and was inspired by the "regenerative, restorative and healing elements of nature," according to the project website.

Newtown residents voted to tear down the old school and construct a new one after the 2012 shooting.
...
As part of the design process, architecture firm Svigals and Partners spent months talking to people in the community, making its construction a collaborative process.

"They were very passionately protective," said project manager Julia McFadden to local radio station WSHU. "They really communicated heartfelt feelings about wanting the whole community to come together and recreate the school in a way the town could reconnect to it. Cause they really had their heart ripped out."

Roughly 70 out of the 390 students returning to Sandy Hook this year attended the old school at the time of the shooting, school officials said. About half were in the building at the time, though none witnessed the shootings. Around 60 percent of the faculty has returned with them.

School officials say they are meeting with the families of the shooting victims to discuss how best to remember the victims at the school. A more overt memorial will be built in another part of town, as the school will be geared more toward the future than the past.

Adam Lanza expressed his desire to commit the Sandy Hook massacre years before the tragedy took place — and when a witness alerted police the cops said there was nothing they can do.

The Sandy Hook shooter told an unidentified male in 2008 that he had access to assault weapons and planned to kill students at the elementary school along with his mother Nancy Lanza, according to FBI documents released this week.

The revelation was first reported by the near the New York Times on Thursday.

The witness — whose name has been redacted from the files — told feds that he had alerted the Newtown Police Department about the disturbing information after being privy to a conversation about the plot.

According to the witness, Newtown police said “Lanza’s mother owned the guns and that there was nothing N.P.D. could do about it.”

gameoverman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:14 pm The cops can't do anything if no crime has been committed, and I'm glad of that since who knows how long I'd have been in prison if someone could get the cops to lock me up by saying I talked about doing something illegal.

Maybe one day we'll have a viable alternative for people, something besides 'do nothing' or 'call cops'.

gameoverman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:14 pm The cops can't do anything if no crime has been committed, and I'm glad of that since who knows how long I'd have been in prison if someone could get the cops to lock me up by saying I talked about doing something illegal.

Maybe one day we'll have a viable alternative for people, something besides 'do nothing' or 'call cops'.

Alex Jones has spent years claiming the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School ― where a shooter killed 20 small children and six adults ― was faked. He has claimed the parents of these dead children are liars and “crisis actors.”

Now, those parents are coming after him.

In a pair of lawsuits filed late Monday, the parents of two children who died in the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, say Jones’ repeated lies and conspiratorial ravings have led to death threats. The suits join at least two other recent cases accusing the Infowars host of defamation.

Moliere wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:20 am Sandy Hook Parents Hit Alex Jones With Defamation Lawsuits

Alex Jones has spent years claiming the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School ― where a shooter killed 20 small children and six adults ― was faked. He has claimed the parents of these dead children are liars and “crisis actors.”

Now, those parents are coming after him.

In a pair of lawsuits filed late Monday, the parents of two children who died in the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, say Jones’ repeated lies and conspiratorial ravings have led to death threats. The suits join at least two other recent cases accusing the Infowars host of defamation.

Any lawyers around here want to confirm if they have a valid claim? I hope they do and I hope Alex Jones has to pay them millions in damages.

Defamation of character occurs when someone makes a false statement about you that causes you some type of harm. The statement must be published (meaning some third party must have heard it), false, and it must result in harm, usually to the reputation.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:02 pm It also has to be believable by a "reasonable" person familiar with the context.

How that applies to Jones and his swarm of parasites I have no idea.

I'm thinking the suit fails, but maybe having a popular platform and repeated untruths might sway a judge? We'll see I guess.

Remus West wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:06 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:02 pm It also has to be believable by a "reasonable" person familiar with the context.

How that applies to Jones and his swarm of parasites I have no idea.

I'm thinking the suit fails, but maybe having a popular platform and repeated untruths might sway a judge? We'll see I guess.

I'd hope that the size of the audience and the ease with which these things have spread makes it acceptable (to me, no idea what it means legally) to set aside the "reasonable" piece. If they don't set that aside they are essentially saying it is legal to gaslight the entire nation as long as you make them believe something ridiculous enough.

Moliere wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:20 am Sandy Hook Parents Hit Alex Jones With Defamation Lawsuits

His defense, meanwhile, argues that while Jones says that Cooper and De La Rosa faked the interview, and provides evidence for that claim that draws upon Jones’s own authority with video production, Jones didn’t intend to speak factually—and, in fact, no reasonable person would expect that Jones spoke factually on his show.
...
“No reasonable reader or listener would interpret Mr. Jones’ statements regarding the possibility of a ‘blue-screen’ being used as a verifiably false statement of fact, and even if it is verifiable as false, the entire context in which it was made discloses that the statements are mere opinions ‘masquerading as a fact.'”

That may be the best argument available to Jones in defending the suit, but it also puts him once more in a position where his lawyers are arguing in court that the things he says during his broadcasts aren’t true—and, in fact, that any “reasonable reader or listener” would conclude that Jones, when he makes statements like “the green screen isn’t set right,” isn’t speaking factually. If Jones isn’t to be taken seriously when making statements like that, though, it becomes harder to understand what, exactly, Infowars is supposed to be informing its audience of.

and, in fact, that any “reasonable reader or listener” would conclude that Jones, when he makes statements like “the green screen isn’t set right,” isn’t speaking factually.

If Jones isn’t to be taken seriously when making statements like that, though, it becomes harder to understand what, exactly, Infowars is supposed to be informing its audience of.

Jones is a noted conspiracy theorist and the founder of the InfoWars website and podcast. In a Monday tweet, he confirmed that Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple had completely unpublished and/or removed his professional pages and podcasts. All four companies stated that Jones' inflammatory statements about Muslims, immigrants, members of the LGBT community, and other groups violated their terms of service.

"We believe in giving people a voice, but we also want everyone using Facebook to feel safe," Facebook said in a statement. "It's why we have Community Standards and remove anything that violates them, including hate speech that attacks or dehumanizes others. Earlier today, we removed four Pages belonging to Alex Jones for repeatedly posting content over the past several days that breaks those Community Standards." The company also called Jones a "repeat offender."

YouTube listed some similar reasons for its ban in an email to NBC News. Spotify and Apple removed the InfoWars podcast from their streaming services, though a number of InfoWars apps are still available for download on the Apple store.

Families of Sandy Hook shooting victims win legal victory in lawsuit against InfoWars and Alex Jones, after judge grants families’ discovery requests, allowing access to InfoWars’ internal marketing and financial documents. https://abcn.ws/2D2QN4D

A Connecticut judge has ruled that Infowars host Alex Jones must undergo a sworn deposition in the defamation case brought against him by family members of Sandy Hook school shooting victims.
...
The superior court judge also ruled Wednesday that the families can depose several other defendants in the case, including those critical to Infowars' business operations.

Jones has defended the discussions on his show. He has cited First Amendment rights and says he believes the shooting happened.

The father of a victim of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has won a defamation lawsuit against the authors of a book that claimed the shooting never happened — the latest victory for victims' relatives who have been taking a more aggressive stance against conspiracy theorists.

The book, "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," has also been pulled from shelves to settle claims against its publisher filed by Lenny Pozner, whose 6-year-old son Noah was killed in the shooting.
...
A Wisconsin judge issued a summary judgment Monday against authors James Fetzer and Mike Palacek, a ruling that was separate from the settlement between Pozner and the book's publisher. A trial to decide damages has been set for October.

Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist and repeated loser of court battles, was ordered Wednesday to pay more than $20,000 in attorney fees after losing another appeal in a defamation case related to the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. He now owes nearly $150,000 in legal fees before he even faces a jury.

The Texas Court of Appeals sided with Sandy Hook father Neil Heslin, who for years has been attacked by conspiracy theorists who falsely claim the school shooting in which 20 children and six adults were killed never happened.
...
Jones’ most recent appeal to dismiss Heslin’s lawsuit was found to be “frivolous,” the court ruled Wednesday. Jones was ordered to pay $22,250 in attorney fees.

Jones was also ordered to pay approximately $25,000 in October after a court sanctioned him. And in December, he was ordered to pay $100,000 in legal fees after a Texas judge ruled his defense team “intentionally disregarded” an earlier order to produce witnesses.

Attorney Mark Bankston, who is representing Heslin and other families suing Jones, told HuffPost in a statement that the latest victory for his client spells the end for Jones.

“It is rare to see a legal defense so incompetent and disrespectful to the rule of law that it causes a defendant to rack up $150,000 in fines during preliminary motions before even reaching trial,” Bankston said. “These fines are only the beginning. A far greater reckoning awaits Mr. Jones.”

A state appeals court has rejected, yet again, a bid by Alex Jones to toss out a lawsuit by a Sandy Hook parent over the Austin-based conspiracy theorist’s claims that the 2012 elementary school shooting was a hoax.

The ruling was the latest legal setback for Jones’s attempts to fight off four lawsuits over the Sandy Hook reports — this time in favor of Neil Heslin, who sued Jones and his radio and internet show Infowars for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
...
In its latest ruling, the 3rd Court of Appeals said Friday that Heslin also may continue his lawsuit seeking a damage award for emotional distress.

Lawyers for Jones and Infowars argued that Heslin and his son were not named or identified in the reports, a requirement to pursue claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The 3rd Court of Appeals rejected that argument, ruling that Heslin had met the legal requirements to sue by showing that Jones had acted intentionally or recklessly, that the conduct was extreme and outrageous, and that Jones’ actions caused severe emotional distress.

In addition, Jones and Infowars “have not carried their burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their speech was not directed at Heslin,” said the opinion by Justice Gisela Triana that was joined by Chief Justice Jeff Rose and Justice Thomas Baker.

Friday’s ruling also rejected Jones’ arguments that Heslin filed suit after the statute of limitations had passed and that Heslin’s intentional distress claim was barred by his separate lawsuit for defamation.