Why do people think sandy hook was faked?

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

To me, and just my opinion, but what alex Jones and the other conspiracy theory nut bags did, is not, or should not be protected by the first amendment. Some speech, as we all know, is not protected.

 

What Jones did (using dead children and grieving parents to profit, slander, cause hate and division) is not/should not be protected due to the "fighting words" clause. He is purposely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

 

The next is defamation for obvious reasons. Neither of these are protected forms of speech, and I believe he's guilty of both.

 

 

By making that criminal you are opening a door that should never ever be opened. Especially with everything becoming so PC when would that start working against our society?

[crackattack 513]

 

 

By making that criminal you are opening a door that should never ever be opened. Especially with everything becoming so PC when would that start working against our society?

I'm not making anything criminal . These are things already not protected by the first amendment. As I said, I believe what Jones did was considered "fighting words" and defamation. Neither protected. He's inciting violence by calling grieving parents liars. He's inciting violence by profiting from lies about grieving parents. If I was a parent of a SH victim, I would consider this a personal attack, and possibly feel threatened due to how other nut jobs might react. See pizza gate.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

I'm not making anything criminal . These are things already not protected by the first amendment. As I said, I believe what Jones did was considered "fighting words" and defamation. Neither protected. He's inciting violence by calling grieving parents liars. He's inciting violence by profiting from lies about grieving parents. If I was a parent of a SH victim, I would consider this a personal attack, and possibly feel threatened due to how other nut jobs might react. See pizza gate.

 

Settle down killer.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

When a Sandy Hook hoaxer says something or has a theory no matter how stupid it may be, he/she isn't infringing on anyones rights. If you punch them in the face or harm them in anyway you are infringing on theirs. Call me crazy but thats how I see it.

 

If all those morons did was just post on the internet that they think it is fake, you would have a point (about them not infringing on other's rights). But that isn't all they are doing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories#Harassment_by_conspiracy_theorists

 

Gene Rosen, a Newtown resident who was reported to have sheltered six Sandy Hook students and a bus driver in his home during the shooting, has been subject to harassment online alleging he was complicit in a government coverup,^[52] among other things.^[53] Some journalists have cited such incidents as part of a "Sandy Hook Truther Movement" analogous to the 9/11 Truth movement.^[41][54][43] A writer for the Calgary Herald reported that the movement self-identifies as "Operation Terror."^[49]

In May 2014, 28-year-old Andrew David Truelove stole a memorial sign from playgrounds dedicated to victims Grace McDonnell and Chase Kowalski.^[55] He then went on to call the parents of Grace McDonnell, proclaiming that he stole the sign and that he believed their deaths were a "hoax".^[56] He was eventually arrested on May 30, where the signs were found in his home.^[57]Truelove was eventually convicted of the theft and sentenced to 12 months in prison.^[58]

Robbie Parker, the father of victim Emilie Parker – after doing a CNN interview on the day after the shooting – became the target of conspiracy theorists, who claimed the interview was staged.^[59] Parker has been attacked by theorists who believe he is a "crisis actor" and was "getting into character" before going on CNN to grieve over the loss of his child.^[59]

In April 2016, Matthew Mills, a 32-year-old man from Brooklyn, accepted a plea agreement with prosecutors on one count of interfering with police arising from an incident in November 2015, when Mills angrily approached the sister of murdered teacher Victoria Soto—who is regarded as a heroine for her attempt to protect her students from the shooter in the Sandy Hook attack—shoved a photograph in her face, "and began angrily charging that not only did the Sandy Hook tragedy not take place, but that Victoria Soto never existed."^[60][61] Mills entered an Alford pleaand was thus found guilty; he was given a suspended sentence of one year in jail and two years' probation.^[60]

In December 2016, Lucy Richards, a 57-year-old woman from Tampa, was charged with four counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce for sending death threats to Lenny Pozner, whose son Noah was the youngest of 20 children murdered.^[62][63] Pozner has been particularly targeted by Internet trolls and conspiracy theorists because he has vocally fought back against them.^[64] Richards had been expected to plead guilty to one count of transmitting threats, with both the prosecution and defense to recommend a sentence of probation and house arrest. However, in March 2017, Richards—who was free on bond—failed to show up to court for a change-of-plea hearing and sentencing. An arrest warrant was issued, Richards' bond was revoked, and she was soon apprehended.^[65] On June 7, 2017, Richards was sentenced to five months' imprisonment.^[66]

Lenny Pozner, the father of Sandy Hook victim Noah Pozner, founded an organization called HONR, which takes legal action against harassers of Sandy Hook survivors and families.^[67]

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

I still interrupt the first amendment the way it was originally written. Freedom of speech is absolute. The Supreme Court has slowly striped that away. So all these new definitions of what is freedom of speech and what isnt doesnt jive with me. It isnt freedom of speech if there is regulation the same as it isnt a free market if there is regulation.

[parrot 789]

I still interrupt the first amendment the way it was originally written. Freedom of speech is absolute.

 

So if I wanted to publicly call you a serial killer or a child molestor or a Dolphins fan with no proof that this was true, I should be able to do that, and there should be no legal remedy available to you?

[Cdub100 3,380]

To me, and just my opinion, but what alex Jones and the other conspiracy theory nut bags did, is not, or should not be protected by the first amendment. Some speech, as we all know, is not protected.

 

What Jones did (using dead children and grieving parents to profit, slander, cause hate and division) is not/should not be protected due to the "fighting words" clause. He is purposely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

 

The next is defamation for obvious reasons. Neither of these are protected forms of speech, and I believe he's guilty of both.

Good thing you're not the one in charge, comrade! Anyone else you find guilty of a thoughtcrime?

[Cdub100 3,380]

 

So if I wanted to publicly call you a serial killer or a child molestor or a Dolphins fan with no proof that this was true, I should be able to do that, and there should be no legal remedy available to you?

That's called slander and there is a legal remedy.

[Gladiators 1,904]

That's called slander and there is a legal remedy.

But 90s thinks we should all be able to say whatever we want without repercussion.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

 

So if I wanted to publicly call you a serial killer or a child molestor or a Dolphins fan with no proof that this was true, I should be able to do that, and there should be no legal remedy available to you?

 

Exactly.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

But 90s thinks we should all be able to say whatever we want without repercussion.

 

You should be able to.

 

Either that or cut the sh!t and quit calling it free speech and call it regulated speech.

 

We shouldn't be discussing what is or isn't free speech, free speech is free speech without any rules or regulation around it. What we are actually discussing is if we live in a society that accepts free speech or regulated speech and unfortunately it is the latter.

[Gladiators 1,904]

 

You should be able to.

 

Either that or cut the sh!t and quit calling it free speech and call it regulated speech.

We have to call it regulated speech then. The implications of being able to say whatever you want without repercussion would be a clusterfock.

 

False workplace sexual harassment claims. On the flip side, being able to say whatever you want to the hot receptionist. Sharing protected information such as bank/credit card numbers, medical information, SS numbers, Tax/Finacial info, etc. Can someone share patent info or trade secrets without repercussion?

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

We have to call it regulated speech then. The implications of being able to say whatever you want without repercussion would be a clusterfock.

 

False workplace sexual harassment claims. On the flip side, being able to say whatever you want to the hot receptionist. Sharing protected information such as bank/credit card numbers, medical information, SS numbers, Tax/Finacial info, etc. Can someone share patent info or trade secrets without repercussion?

 

Thats what you believe?

 

There are already laws against all of the crimes you listed and none have anything to do with freedom of speech. Sharing bank/credit card information is essentially the same as stealing someones house key, making copies and passing them out and telling everyone there are valuables in there.

 

The repercussion is they lose their job, that is something the government shouldn't be involved in at all.

[parrot 789]

That's called slander and there is a legal remedy.

 

Yeah, no shi!t Matlock.

[parrot 789]

 

Exactly.

What if I have a competing holster company and I want to say that stupid, down-the-pants holsters cause ball cancer? Can I do that one too?

[Gladiators 1,904]

 

Thats what you believe?

 

There are already laws against all of the crimes you listed and none have anything to do with freedom of speech. Sharing bank/credit card information is essentially the same as stealing someones house key, making copies and passing them out and telling everyone there are valuables in there.

 

The repercussion is they lose their job, that is something the government shouldn't be involved in at all.

Okay, forgive me. I thought you meant we could all say whatever we want, whenever we want, without repercussion. If you dont believe that, then carry on. My mistake.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

What if I have a competing holster company and I want to say that stupid, down-the-pants holsters cause ball cancer? Can I do that one too?

 

I would agree, thats why I have an Aliengear.

 

I left there in a blaze of glory, it is actually a pretty funny story.

[parrot 789]

 

I would agree, thats why I have an Aliengear.

 

I left there in a blaze of glory, it is actually a pretty funny story.

Okay, you got me there.

[wiffleball 4,640]

 

If all those morons did was just post on the internet that they think it is fake, you would have a point (about them not infringing on other's rights). But that isn't all they are doing.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories#Harassment_by_conspiracy_theorists

 

Jesus, the fact that there's even a discussion about this...

[cbfalcon 824]

When a Sandy Hook hoaxer says something or has a theory no matter how stupid it may be, he/she isn't infringing on anyones rights. If you punch them in the face or harm them in anyway you are infringing on theirs. Call me crazy but thats how I see it.

 

I am actually with you on this. Sandy Hook hoax believers are really the exact same as Westboro Baptist Church. They are equally vile and sick, but they have that legal right.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Jesus, the fact that there's even a ###### discussion about this...

 

Hey wiff, I know you are a focking dumbass but you do realize all the things listed in the Wikipedia article are beyond free of speech right? Its harassment.

[parrot 789]

 

Sandy Hook hoax believers are really the exact same as Westboro Baptist Church.

 

Not really. Westboro Baptists say some nasty things, but nothing they say is objectively true or false. When Sandy Hook denier fockfaces claim it was faked, that is objectively false.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

 

Not really. Westboro Baptists say some nasty things, but nothing they say is objectively true or false. When Sandy Hook denier fockfaces claim it was faked, that is objectively false.

 

Is being false or lying illegal if not under oath?

 

What about if they think they are actually telling the truth, what if they actually believe all the nonsense they spread? We are aloud to share ideas that is what made this country so great. Whether you agree with them or not.

[MDC 5,891]

I hate to agree with 90sbaby because he is a focking tard but hes right on this one. The Sandy Hook deniers may be guilty of slander or some other offense but their conspiracies are free speech. They are also 100% deserving of being derided and mocked.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

I hate to agree with 90sbaby because he is a focking tard but hes right on this one. The Sandy Hook deniers may be guilty of slander or some other offense but their conspiracies are free speech. They are also 100% deserving of being derided and mocked.

 

I'm not actually retarded. Is that considered slander?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[parrot 789]

I hate to agree with 90sbaby because he is a focking tard but hes right on this one. The Sandy Hook deniers may be guilty of slander or some other offense but their conspiracies are free speech. They are also 100% deserving of being derided and mocked.

 

I don't that anyone thinks they aren't technically within their rights.

[wiffleball 4,640]

 

I'm not actually retarded. Is that considered slander?

 

 

it is considered highly debatable.

[wiffleball 4,640]

 

I don't that anyone thinks they aren't technically within their rights.

Exactly. Read a f****** thread title every once in awhile huh?

[Gladiators 1,904]

 

I don't that anyone thinks they aren't technically within their rights.

This is the disconnect.

 

Im just saying that I think they deserve to be punched in the mouf...or that I wouldnt be sad if they fall off a boat in deep water with an anchor tied around their neck.

[parrot 789]

This is the disconnect.

 

Im just saying that I think they deserve to be punched in the mouf...or that I wouldnt be sad if they fall off a boat in deep water with an anchor tied around their neck.

Yep, that's why I said punched in the face and not "sued" or "thrown in jail". I like to see a little karmic justice in those areas our system doesn't handle so well.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Exactly. Read a f****** thread title every once in awhile huh?

 

Are you seriously complaining that the thread didn't stay on topic? You?

[MDC 5,891]

 

I don't that anyone thinks they aren't technically within their rights.

Then I dont know what you guys are arguing about.

[Mr. Hand 482]

The same reason people think Mel Tillis was the truck driver in smoke and the bandit.

I thought it was Randy Travis.

[parrot 789]

Then I dont know what you guys are arguing about.

 

Clearly.

[ROCKFORD 134]

The same reason people think Mel Tillis was the truck driver in smoke and the bandit.

 

i thought that was kris kristopherson?

[wiffleball 4,640]

Then I dont know what you guys are arguing about.

This

[Gepetto 987]

 

Is being false or lying illegal if not under oath?

 

What about if they think they are actually telling the truth, what if they actually believe all the nonsense they spread? We are aloud to share ideas that is what made this country so great. Whether you agree with them or not.

 

Maybe without proof, they should be ordered to get psychiatric help.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

So you guys are all for free speech unless someone says something you don't agree with or you think is absurd and in that case they should be shot? Granted I think all the Sandy Hook hoaxers are idiots, it doesn't really bother me that much, does it really bother you?

 

I don't think they should be subject to criminal action or anything, because that would violate Free Speech.

 

But if one of these parents beat the ever-loving sh!t out of Alex Jones? I would cheer that person.

[wiffleball 4,640]

 

I don't think they should be subject to criminal action or anything, because that would violate Free Speech.

 

But if one of these parents beat the ever-loving sh!t out of Alex Jones? I would cheer that person.

This

[parrot 789]

 

I don't think they should be subject to criminal action or anything, because that would violate Free Speech.

 

But if one of these parents beat the ever-loving sh!t out of Alex Jones? I would cheer that person.