How is this not a first amendment violation?

who decides whats true. Even if it was true the government would never except his proof

Why would I care about the kike’s opinion who ruled on this?

sandy hook never happened

CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW FAGGOT
There used to be duels to settle cases of slander btw.

But it is true. Why does some kike judge get to decide what's true?

Truth can be established through admissible evidence. It doesn't even have to be factually true IIRC, you just need to show enough evidence to convince the jury that you reasonably believed it was true, and that any reasonable person would believe it were true given the same evidence. I can only assume that they were unable to provide any admissible evidence (not saying it doesn't exist).

That has never been the controlling legal view in the United States. See: fighting words, obscenity, school restrictions, work place restrictions, imminent threats, slander, libel

>>he would have been off the hook
but was the hook sandy?
kek

For duels to work you require a culture of honour.

the latest attempt at trapping AJ with cp is very telling.

why do they hate AJ so much? i get the feeling that if his crew had not spotted what they would find out was cp in the email, AJ would be screwed.

Because he's right like 80 percent of the time.

Why would you put your children in a school that was closed due to a flood and suddenly reopened for children classes?

Would you allow your child to go to a school that still shows signs of flooding?

Imagine the mold.
I bet that is what killed those kids.
Mold.
On the mind.

Attached: Signs of flooding.jpg (613x925, 129K)

Sandy hook never happened.
But it is true.

youtube.com/watch?v=kDczJbiwWv4
>"Of course it's true! But it may not have happened."

Attached: 13855067.jpg (635x953, 450K)

there is so much weird shit with sandy hook. the most recent bizarre shit somebody posted here was about a list of stuff amazon wont allow to sell on their website. it is a somewhat small list with the usual shit. you cant talk about holocaust denial or lower numbers for it, a few other topics.

and sandy hook... it stuck out like a sore thumb. why the fuck cant we talk about it?

But you can talk about it.
Is someone preventing you from speaking?

Attached: 1366148667361.jpg (538x717, 47K)

>adam lanza had multitudes of massive effort posts on online forums of him pondering over how to enact gun reform via mass shootings and how he'd do it better than what happened in Australia before they enacted gun restrictions
>NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF MEDIA THOUGHT THIS WAS IMPORTANT

you know what i mean you obtuse motherfucker.

>Note: truth is a defense, so if he could have proven it was true he would have been off the hook.
he made the assertion that something did not happen. one does not prove a negative, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove the event occurred and thus the defendant lied/slandered/libelled.

civil suits are different though. it doesn't seem to matter whether or not something is true, it's about perceived damages and corrupt faggot mason judges.

Truth is absolutely an absolute defense to defamation in my jurisdiction, and that is how it is tested on the bar exam around the country. Some jdx may vary, but Arkansas and the MBE allow a truth defense. As for the plaintiff's burden, it is my understanding that they admitted the kid's birth certificate and other medical documentation to demonstrate that the statements were false. Again, he could have easily couched his comments as opinion or located admissible evidence supporting his statement. Then it simply becomes a jury question as they decide which is more credible, the defendant's evidence establishing truth or the plaintiff's evidence establishing falsity. My understanding is that he did none of that, which, going back to my original post, is a stupid and reckless thing to do. He knew he was making a controversial statement and should have done his homework in preparation for the inevitable legal and public attacks. To simply make the statement with little to no protection legally or for his credibility is just lazy.

Fpbp

Attached: IMG_0220.jpg (828x742, 93K)

>Why shouldn’t someone be able say Sandy Hook never happened?
The defendent claimed the father was a crisis actor, which is slander.

Yeah no this sounds exactly like those guys who offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to anyone who could proof that the holocaust was real and the judge made them pay said money to a jew who said he was there.
Truth doesn't matter in the judicial system.

isnt this a violation of freedom of the press AND freedom of speech?
SANDY HOOK DIDNT HAPPEN
JEW ME SUE ME

Why did Adolf Lanza gas so many millions of students?

The first amendment only protects against government agencies and not public trust.

>Note: truth is a defense, so if he could have proven it was true he would have been off the hook.
He lost on summary judgment even though the facts were contested - in a fair judicial system he would be able to win a reversal on appeal.
But, of course, the system isn't fair.

After looking into the case you mentioned (Mel Mermelstein v. IHR), the two are not analogous. First, the first Mermelstein case ended in a settlement, not a final judicial judgment. Second, Mermelstein attempted to go after the group AGAIN despite the settlement for, among other things, defamation, but ultimately dropped all of the claims once it became clear the court was not having it. So, in neither of the Mermelstein cases did the case ever proceed to trial. Had it done so, the jury would have been tasked with determining actual malice on the part of the defendant. Actual malice ultimately turns on whether the plaintiff can prove that the defendant entertained serious doubts about its truthfulness; mere failure to check the facts is not sufficient. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). I am actually interested in why the defendant chose to settle in that case given the seemingly sincere belief in their claims. That argument has legs, as made evidence by the plaintiff's utter failure in his additional claims when he tried to take another bite of the apple. Looks like the defendant folded too early.

But I digress, the two cases turn on different facts and are therefor distinguishable from one another.

I had noticed that and fully anticipate an appeal. Judging from the facts as I see them, I think that appeal could succeed. It's clear the judge had a knee jerk disgust toward the defendant's conduct and a reasonable appellate court could determine that resulted in an abuse of the Judge's discretion. I see no reason why this didn't go to trial as genuine issues of material fact were ultimately in dispute, making MSJ inappropriate.

80% of the CT police report is redacted

Attached: 11461AF8-CFC4-43A3-97CD-8D4AF90BBF30.jpg (750x481, 40K)