Case that Could Have Implications for all Conspiracy Theorists

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:19:40 -0500, John McAdams

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

That doesn't work, but this one does:

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/uzGiDhpaPz0c1OJ79fd6bJ/

This one works too.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/07/30/breaking-news/infowars-alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-of-fake-news/

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-02 02:03:14 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:19:40 -0500, John McAdams

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/uzGiDhpaPz0c1OJ79fd6bJ/
This one works too.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/07/30/breaking-news/infowars-alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-of-fake-news/
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Thanks for uploading us to the correct Web site. But WHY? We already know
he's a kook. Do you know that he's a favorite of Donald Trump who believes
every crazy conspiracy theory he puts out? Cui bono?

John McAdams

2018-08-02 02:04:37 UTC

On 1 Aug 2018 22:03:14 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Post by John McAdams
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:19:40 -0500, John McAdams

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

Sure, Tony, you want him put out of business because he supports
Trump.

But you might consider the implications for JFK conspiracy theorists
who make baseless charges against people.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-03 13:54:30 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 1 Aug 2018 22:03:14 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Post by John McAdams
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:19:40 -0500, John McAdams

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

Sure, Tony, you want him put out of business because he supports
Trump.

Nope. I want him to have freedom of speech so that you can see how crazy
he is. Do you believe in Q?

Post by John McAdams
But you might consider the implications for JFK conspiracy theorists
who make baseless charges against people.

Of course they do. And those people should point out why the charges are
baseless. It's not just enough to say, "You're wrong." You should explain
what he's wrong about and why. To educate people. Do you remember that
idea? Educate!

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Mark

2018-08-02 02:05:22 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:19:40 -0500, John McAdams

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

Substitute Paine for De La Rosa and things start to get closer to home.
But I'll let the CTs go first. Mark

bigdog

2018-08-01 16:01:11 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

While there is no doubt Alex Jones is so full of shit that it oozes from
his ears, it would be a dangerous precedent if the government were allowed
to control the content of programs such as his. It is not the role of
government to decide what is legitimate news and what is propaganda.
Propaganda is protected by the First Amendment which is why MSNBC and CNN
are allowed to operate.

John McAdams

2018-08-01 16:10:04 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

I generally agree with you about the role of the government. In
Europe, you can get put in jail for denying the holocaust.

So then why not put JFK conspiracy theorists in jail for *their*
conspiracy theory?

But note that juries do get to decide what the "truth" is in libel
cases, since truth is an absolute defense against libel.

The people Jones is picking on are not "public figures." If they
were, it would pretty much be open season on them because of a Supreme
Court decision called "Sullivan."

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

bigdog

2018-08-02 16:30:30 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

I generally agree with you about the role of the government. In
Europe, you can get put in jail for denying the holocaust.
So then why not put JFK conspiracy theorists in jail for *their*
conspiracy theory?
But note that juries do get to decide what the "truth" is in libel
cases, since truth is an absolute defense against libel.
The people Jones is picking on are not "public figures." If they
were, it would pretty much be open season on them because of a Supreme
Court decision called "Sullivan."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39

I guess I'm trying to understand where the defamation is. Do the suits
claim that Jones has defamed these parents by claiming they didn't really
lose children in the Sandy Hook massacre. I'm not lawyer but that seems a
stretch of libel laws to me. If it does constitute libel, a defense could
be made that once these parents chose to speak out in favor of gun control
laws they became public figures which would raise the bar for a libel
case.

Steve M. Galbraith

2018-08-04 02:44:22 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

I generally agree with you about the role of the government. In
Europe, you can get put in jail for denying the holocaust.
So then why not put JFK conspiracy theorists in jail for *their*
conspiracy theory?
But note that juries do get to decide what the "truth" is in libel
cases, since truth is an absolute defense against libel.
The people Jones is picking on are not "public figures." If they
were, it would pretty much be open season on them because of a Supreme
Court decision called "Sullivan."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39

If Jones is claiming that the parents have conspired with the government
to promote a false story, to lie about what happened, to lie about what
happened to their children, to use their children for some ulterior
motive, I certainly think that's defamation.

If you do a search you'll see that Jones has accused the parents of faking
their children's deaths.

Here's one quote: "We've clearly got people where it's actors playing
different parts of different people... I've looked at it and undoubtedly
there's a cover-up, there's actors, they're manipulating, they've been
caught lying and they were pre-planning before it and rolled out with
it."

It sure appears from that that he's saying the parents are actors and
lying about what happened.

I don't think every one of the parents turned into public figures
advocating for gun control. I'm not sure that even if they did that that
means they're public figures.

bigdog

2018-08-05 04:02:21 UTC

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

I generally agree with you about the role of the government. In
Europe, you can get put in jail for denying the holocaust.
So then why not put JFK conspiracy theorists in jail for *their*
conspiracy theory?
But note that juries do get to decide what the "truth" is in libel
cases, since truth is an absolute defense against libel.
The people Jones is picking on are not "public figures." If they
were, it would pretty much be open season on them because of a Supreme
Court decision called "Sullivan."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39

If Jones is claiming that the parents have conspired with the government
to promote a false story, to lie about what happened, to lie about what
happened to their children, to use their children for some ulterior
motive, I certainly think that's defamation.
If you do a search you'll see that Jones has accused the parents of faking
their children's deaths.
Here's one quote: "We've clearly got people where it's actors playing
different parts of different people... I've looked at it and undoubtedly
there's a cover-up, there's actors, they're manipulating, they've been
caught lying and they were pre-planning before it and rolled out with
it."
It sure appears from that that he's saying the parents are actors and
lying about what happened.
I don't think every one of the parents turned into public figures
advocating for gun control. I'm not sure that even if they did that that
means they're public figures.

Based on what I've seen courts rule in other libel cases, the definition
of what constitutes a public figure is a very loose one. I found this
definiion on a legal website:

https://libelandslander.uslegal.com/fault/public-officials-and-public-figures/

"Later cases expanded the rule to apply to public figures. A public figure
is someone who has gained a significant degree of fame or notoriety in
general or in the context of a particular issue or controversy. Even
though these figures have no official role in government affairs, they
often hold considerable influence over decisions made by the government or
by the public. Examples of public figures are numerous and could include,
for instance, celebrities, prominent athletes, or advocates who involve
themselves in a public debate."

I think the last line would apply to those parents who have spoken out
publicly.

The other issue regards damages. Have these parents suffered financial
harm because of Jones's remarks or are they suing for the emotional pain
he has inflicted upon them? Not being a lawyer, I don't know if the latter
is applicable in a defamation suit.

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-07 03:23:32 UTC

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

I generally agree with you about the role of the government. In
Europe, you can get put in jail for denying the holocaust.
So then why not put JFK conspiracy theorists in jail for *their*
conspiracy theory?
But note that juries do get to decide what the "truth" is in libel
cases, since truth is an absolute defense against libel.
The people Jones is picking on are not "public figures." If they
were, it would pretty much be open season on them because of a Supreme
Court decision called "Sullivan."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39

I guess he is trying to defame the US government for creating a hoax.
Lots of luck with that tactic. Like claiming that WWII never happened.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If Jones is claiming that the parents have conspired with the government
to promote a false story, to lie about what happened, to lie about what
happened to their children, to use their children for some ulterior
motive, I certainly think that's defamation.
If you do a search you'll see that Jones has accused the parents of faking
their children's deaths.
Here's one quote: "We've clearly got people where it's actors playing
different parts of different people... I've looked at it and undoubtedly
there's a cover-up, there's actors, they're manipulating, they've been
caught lying and they were pre-planning before it and rolled out with
it."
It sure appears from that that he's saying the parents are actors and
lying about what happened.
I don't think every one of the parents turned into public figures
advocating for gun control. I'm not sure that even if they did that that
means they're public figures.

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-07 04:56:29 UTC

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

I generally agree with you about the role of the government. In
Europe, you can get put in jail for denying the holocaust.
So then why not put JFK conspiracy theorists in jail for *their*
conspiracy theory?
But note that juries do get to decide what the "truth" is in libel
cases, since truth is an absolute defense against libel.
The people Jones is picking on are not "public figures." If they
were, it would pretty much be open season on them because of a Supreme
Court decision called "Sullivan."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39

If Jones is claiming that the parents have conspired with the government
to promote a false story, to lie about what happened, to lie about what
happened to their children, to use their children for some ulterior
motive, I certainly think that's defamation.
If you do a search you'll see that Jones has accused the parents of faking
their children's deaths.
Here's one quote: "We've clearly got people where it's actors playing
different parts of different people... I've looked at it and undoubtedly
there's a cover-up, there's actors, they're manipulating, they've been
caught lying and they were pre-planning before it and rolled out with
it."
It sure appears from that that he's saying the parents are actors and
lying about what happened.
I don't think every one of the parents turned into public figures
advocating for gun control. I'm not sure that even if they did that that
means they're public figures.

How does one become a upblic figure?

Are you born that way? Well, maybe in the case of the Royal Family.

But most people have to actually do something public to become a public
figure. Was Trump a pubic figure before he became President? You say no
one ever heard of him before and you didn't watch his TV show so to YOU he
was not yet a public figure? Can you admit that he's a public figure now
or is that too much of a stretch for you?

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-02 16:55:36 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

I generally agree with you about the role of the government. In
Europe, you can get put in jail for denying the holocaust.

So, can we put you guys in jail for denying the conspiracy?

Post by John McAdams
So then why not put JFK conspiracy theorists in jail for *their*
conspiracy theory?

You got that backwards. You should be put in jail for denying the
conspiracy and we are the heroes for exposing it. How come conspiracy
deniers are also holocaust deniers and climate change deniers?
You have to SEE the catastrophe for yourself before admitting it is
possible?

Post by John McAdams
But note that juries do get to decide what the "truth" is in libel
cases, since truth is an absolute defense against libel.

Why does it have to be LIBEL? What about defamation of character?
Remember Steve Bochan's case?

Post by John McAdams
The people Jones is picking on are not "public figures." If they
were, it would pretty much be open season on them because of a Supreme
Court decision called "Sullivan."

OMG, you understand all the intricacies of Sullivan?
Are you a lawyer?

Post by John McAdams
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

mainframetech

2018-08-04 02:47:57 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

I generally agree with you about the role of the government. In
Europe, you can get put in jail for denying the holocaust.
So then why not put JFK conspiracy theorists in jail for *their*
conspiracy theory?
But note that juries do get to decide what the "truth" is in libel
cases, since truth is an absolute defense against libel.
The people Jones is picking on are not "public figures." If they
were, it would pretty much be open season on them because of a Supreme
Court decision called "Sullivan."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

The reasons don't apply here in most cases. Most speakers believe what
they have said, and have looked up the information, or done some research.
Though at times there are harmful statements made about individuals which
might fall into the negative categories.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-02 16:55:18 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

Especially when it is the government which is putting out FAKE NEWS and
propaganda. Holy Hypocrisy, Batman.

Post by bigdog
Propaganda is protected by the First Amendment which is why MSNBC and CNN
are allowed to operate.

Propaganda is what helped America to gain its independence from England.
Ever hear of the American Revolution?

mainframetech

2018-08-04 02:48:50 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

While you wander around blatting the 1st amendment, you forget as you
often do, that there are caveats to many of those amendments. You cannot
yell 'fire'! In a crowded theater, and you can't make hate statements
about others, and you cannot make death threats to others. You forget
too, that there are clear laws about defamation, slander and libel.

Years ago, Alex Jones got onto the fact that as he investigated
various conspiracies. like the 9/11 tower collapse, and others, that he
was gaining more listeners every day. He was flushed with success, and he
went too far over to the 'dark force' and began making up stories for
everyone to worry about. He did indeed fake many of them. He deserves
whatever he gets for doing his 'thing' to children of the Sandy Hook
school.

Chris

bigdog

2018-08-05 04:07:52 UTC

Post by mainframetech

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

Yes you can. If you couldn't, that would stifle much of what MSNBC and CNN
have to say about Trump.

Post by mainframetech
and you cannot make death threats to others. You forget
too, that there are clear laws about defamation, slander and libel.
Years ago, Alex Jones got onto the fact that as he investigated
various conspiracies. like the 9/11 tower collapse, and others, that he
was gaining more listeners every day. He was flushed with success, and he
went too far over to the 'dark force' and began making up stories for
everyone to worry about. He did indeed fake many of them. He deserves
whatever he gets for doing his 'thing' to children of the Sandy Hook
school.

I don't know of anything Jones has been involved in that wasn't a farce.
I'm sure he knows it but he also knows it sells. It attracts listeners
which is why he does it. He did nothing to the children of Sandy Hook. Any
harm he has done as been to the parents of those murdered children. While
I think what he has said is repulsive, repulsive speech is protected by
the First Amendment. The limits on free speech are confined to speech
which causes harm to others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has the
potential to cause a stampede which could result in injury or death to
others. The principal established by the courts is that the speech must
present a "clear and present danger".

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Present+Danger

In order to restrict free speech, the government must show that the speech
created imminent danger to others. A speaker cannot be silenced simply
because his views are controversial and might cause an angry reaction by
those with opposing views. That is known as a "heckler's veto".

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HecklersVeto.aspx

Anitfa has adopted the tactic of the heckler's veto to prevent
conservatives from speaking on college campuses.

There was an outstanding made-for-TV movie called Skokie in 1981 that
dealt with these issues. The ACLU took up the cause of the American Nazi
Party who were denied a permit to stage a march in the heavily Jewish
Chicago suburb of Skokie. I don't see it available on DVD but if anyone
gets a chance to see it, I highly recommend it.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083090/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_3

Steve M. Galbraith

2018-08-06 16:10:49 UTC

Post by mainframetech

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

Yes you can. If you couldn't, that would stifle much of what MSNBC and CNN
have to say about Trump.

I don't know of anything Jones has been involved in that wasn't a farce.
I'm sure he knows it but he also knows it sells. It attracts listeners
which is why he does it. He did nothing to the children of Sandy Hook. Any
harm he has done as been to the parents of those murdered children. While
I think what he has said is repulsive, repulsive speech is protected by
the First Amendment. The limits on free speech are confined to speech
which causes harm to others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has the
potential to cause a stampede which could result in injury or death to
others. The principal established by the courts is that the speech must
present a "clear and present danger".
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Present+Danger
In order to restrict free speech, the government must show that the speech
created imminent danger to others. A speaker cannot be silenced simply
because his views are controversial and might cause an angry reaction by
those with opposing views. That is known as a "heckler's veto".
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HecklersVeto.aspx
Anitfa has adopted the tactic of the heckler's veto to prevent
conservatives from speaking on college campuses.
There was an outstanding made-for-TV movie called Skokie in 1981 that
dealt with these issues. The ACLU took up the cause of the American Nazi
Party who were denied a permit to stage a march in the heavily Jewish
Chicago suburb of Skokie. I don't see it available on DVD but if anyone
gets a chance to see it, I highly recommend it.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083090/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_3

The poster who accuses all sorts of people of killing JFK and covering it
up is lecturing you on defamation and how it's not protected speech.

And he even condemns Jones for Jone's 9/11 conspiracy ideas.

This is like having the self-awareness of a rock.

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-07 03:23:46 UTC

Post by mainframetech

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/

Yes you can. If you couldn't, that would stifle much of what MSNBC and CNN
have to say about Trump.

Oh, poor baby? Most of the time all they have to is quote what he
actually said and always convicts himself.

I don't know of anything Jones has been involved in that wasn't a farce.
I'm sure he knows it but he also knows it sells. It attracts listeners
which is why he does it. He did nothing to the children of Sandy Hook. Any
harm he has done as been to the parents of those murdered children. While
I think what he has said is repulsive, repulsive speech is protected by
the First Amendment. The limits on free speech are confined to speech
which causes harm to others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has the
potential to cause a stampede which could result in injury or death to
others. The principal established by the courts is that the speech must
present a "clear and present danger".
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Present+Danger
In order to restrict free speech, the government must show that the speech
created imminent danger to others. A speaker cannot be silenced simply
because his views are controversial and might cause an angry reaction by
those with opposing views. That is known as a "heckler's veto".
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HecklersVeto.aspx
Anitfa has adopted the tactic of the heckler's veto to prevent
conservatives from speaking on college campuses.
There was an outstanding made-for-TV movie called Skokie in 1981 that
dealt with these issues. The ACLU took up the cause of the American Nazi
Party who were denied a permit to stage a march in the heavily Jewish
Chicago suburb of Skokie. I don't see it available on DVD but if anyone
gets a chance to see it, I highly recommend it.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083090/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_3

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-01 16:03:31 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/
.John
-----------------------

404 NOT FOUND
Or maybe a Javascript error if they moved the page.
We know you meant ill, but do you realize that if you attack Alex Jones
that is the same thing as attacking Trump? He believes all those
conspiracy theories. You claim to detest people who believe conspiracy
theories. And yet you keep supporting Trump no matter how crazy he is.
How's his bornder wall coming? Now that you're rich again, did you
remember to send in your contribution to build The Wall?

Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-02 16:31:39 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/alex-jones-faces-existential-courtroom-battle-over-limits-fake-news/
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Not sure what you mean. Obviously you want to restrict free speech. But do
you intend to do it by suing people who have theories that you don't like?
Start with the guy who says the SS shot JFK.

Or do you want the government to shut down conspiracy Web sites? How about
YOURS?

The FBI tried to shut down my Web site back in 2000, but my hosting
company said they would not take down my site because of Freedom of
Speech. Obviously you do not believe in the Bill of Rights. But what if it
benefits YOU? Then you like it. It it benefits ME you don't like it.

Aren't you old enough to remember the Marsh Rule? If both Anthony Marsh
and John McAdams agree that someone is a kook, that is proof that the
person is a kook.

John McAdams

2018-08-02 16:34:51 UTC

On 2 Aug 2018 12:31:39 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Do you have some evidence of that, Tony?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Obviously you do not believe in the Bill of Rights.

I think "Citizens United" and "Heller" were correctly decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court.

What about you?

Post by Anthony Marsh
But what if it
benefits YOU? Then you like it. It it benefits ME you don't like it.
Aren't you old enough to remember the Marsh Rule? If both Anthony Marsh
and John McAdams agree that someone is a kook, that is proof that the
person is a kook.

Being a kook does not strip people of their Constitutional rights. If
it did, the conspiracy community would be in big trouble.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-03 13:54:43 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 2 Aug 2018 12:31:39 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Do you have some evidence of that, Tony?

Yes, call up my old hosting company.

Post by Anthony Marsh
Obviously you do not believe in the Bill of Rights.

I think "Citizens United" and "Heller" were correctly decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
What about you?

No, silly. A corporation is not a person and should not have the same
rights as a person.

Being a kook does not strip people of their Constitutional rights. If
it did, the conspiracy community would be in big trouble.

The Marsh Rule says nothing about denying anyone their rights.

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

bpete1969

2018-08-06 16:13:31 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 2 Aug 2018 12:31:39 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Do you have some evidence of that, Tony?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Obviously you do not believe in the Bill of Rights.

I think "Citizens United" and "Heller" were correctly decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
What about you?

Being a kook does not strip people of their Constitutional rights. If
it did, the conspiracy community would be in big trouble.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Marsh is the John Munch of JFKdom

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-07 15:29:52 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 2 Aug 2018 12:31:39 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Do you have some evidence of that, Tony?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Obviously you do not believe in the Bill of Rights.

I think "Citizens United" and "Heller" were correctly decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
What about you?

Being a kook does not strip people of their Constitutional rights. If
it did, the conspiracy community would be in big trouble.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Marsh is the John Munch of JFKdom

Stop using big words that no one here understands. Have some respect for
your audience.

bigdog

2018-08-08 05:59:29 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 2 Aug 2018 12:31:39 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Do you have some evidence of that, Tony?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Obviously you do not believe in the Bill of Rights.

I think "Citizens United" and "Heller" were correctly decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
What about you?

Being a kook does not strip people of their Constitutional rights. If
it did, the conspiracy community would be in big trouble.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Marsh is the John Munch of JFKdom

I had to google to find out who John Munch was. I wasn't a regular watcher
of any of the many series in which the character appeared. I knew Richard
Belzer was an actor on the series but I didn't know his character's name.
My google search tells me that Munch, like Belzer, is a devotee of
conspiracy theories. I remember he hosted a show on one of NBC's cable
properties about the time Cased Closed came out and was a very vocal
critic of it. No surprise there.

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-09 16:02:07 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 2 Aug 2018 12:31:39 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Do you have some evidence of that, Tony?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Obviously you do not believe in the Bill of Rights.

I think "Citizens United" and "Heller" were correctly decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
What about you?

Being a kook does not strip people of their Constitutional rights. If
it did, the conspiracy community would be in big trouble.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Marsh is the John Munch of JFKdom

Exactly. Another waste of 10 minutes.

bpete1969

2018-08-11 04:03:47 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 2 Aug 2018 12:31:39 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Do you have some evidence of that, Tony?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Obviously you do not believe in the Bill of Rights.

I think "Citizens United" and "Heller" were correctly decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
What about you?

Being a kook does not strip people of their Constitutional rights. If
it did, the conspiracy community would be in big trouble.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Marsh is the John Munch of JFKdom

The reference to Munch was based on this, best described by
Wikipedia..."During the late 1960s and the early 1970s, he was an
occasional reporter and music reviewer for the alternative magazine The
Paper. Although he considered himself to be a "dangerous radical" due to
his left-wing views, conspiracy theories and involvement with anti-Vietnam
War protests, the FBI believed that he was a dilettante and posed no
threat".

Mark

2018-08-03 02:49:12 UTC

Not sure what you mean. Obviously you want to restrict free speech. But do
you intend to do it by suing people who have theories that you don't like?
Start with the guy who says the SS shot JFK.
Or do you want the government to shut down conspiracy Web sites? How about
YOURS?
The FBI tried to shut down my Web site back in 2000, but my hosting
company said they would not take down my site because of Freedom of
Speech. Obviously you do not believe in the Bill of Rights. But what if it
benefits YOU? Then you like it. It it benefits ME you don't like it.

The FBI tried to close down your "Puzzle Palace"? That would have to be
a VERY memorable, terrible time for you. Did you come on here, this
Newsgroup, in real time and blast the FBI? What did you do about it? I
mean this would be huge, newsworthy evidence of the Feds ongoing effort to
cover up the assassination truth, because after all you are a dissenter.
And please don't tell us you were afraid to speak out. Your "hosting
company" stood up to the FBI. Since when has Tony Marsh ever been
intimidated by the FBI?

Mark

Anthony Marsh

2018-08-07 03:24:13 UTC

Post by Mark