KindaSkolarly wrote:State Supreme Court to hear InfoWars appeal in Sandy Hook case
...“This is extremely good news for all who care about freedom of expression,” Pattis said. “One may disagree with Mr. Jones, in which case the remedy is not to listen to him. Silencing speech is never a good idea. While we owe sympathy to the Sandy Hook parents, their grief does not entitle them to become censors.”...
ctpost.com/local/article/State-Supreme- ... 086011.php
The Connecticut Supreme Court is taking over the Alex Jones / Sandy Hook case. That almost never happens, but the lower courts are futzing around with the First Amendment and freedom of speech here. Cases have an almost guaranteed path to the US Supreme Court once they come out of a state's supreme court, so eventually the landmark case reaffirming freedom of speech in America may have Alex Jones' name on it. Excellent.
In his attempt to earn back his right of appeal, Jones will need to defend somehow these words about the lawyer of the plaintiffs' law firm: "What a good boy. You think you’ll put on me, what ... I’m gonna kill ... Anyway, I’m done! Total war! You want it, you got it!” If he succeeds in spinning such language and wins, he then still needs to convince a different judge to dismiss the lawsuit because he did not defame the children and parents at Sandy Hook. That's gonna be a very difficult one, with the whole thing relying on Jones' sincerity that he was suffering from mental illness when he believed Sandy Hook was staged and crusaded against the families. Therefore he wasn't responsible. If that defense should be accepted, which I strongly doubt, Jones would surely be required to shut down his entire operation as part of his treatment for his illness. Jones is facing financial ruin from this lawsuit, so it's understandable that he desperately needs to fight it off.
"Genetic fallacy" pertains to much of the video. It's fallacious to claim that current conditions are the fault of their supposed parents far back in time. The fallacy is made clearer in this case by the fact that the author's view of liberalism through the great part of its existence is quite positive. In fact, he says Western Civilization couldn't have been born without liberalism. So how is it possible that we had to wait so long to see liberalism's evil spawn? It's the "contains within it the seeds of its own destruction" idea--just a variation of the genetic fallacy.
