Adam Lanza's entry point into Sandy Hook Elementary School
Courtesy Connecticut State Police
Previous Post
Next Post

Just as after virtually every high profile shooting in this country, a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists sprung up after the Sandy Hook shooting. Alex Jones has claimed both that the shooting was a “false flag” operation conducted by the government and that no one actually died there that day. Jones has lost a defamation suit brought by some of the victims’ families.

Another similar lawsuit was brought against James Fetzer and Mike Palacek who wrote a book entitled Nobody Died at Sandy Hook. The two authors claimed, according to, that “the mass shooting was a FEMA drill to promote gun control and that the grieving father (Leonard Pozner) had fabricated his son Noah’s death certificate, which is a crime in Connecticut.”

Fetzer lost that suit. Now he’s been ordered to pay Pozner a six-figure damage award.

From the Associated Press . . .

A jury in Wisconsin has awarded $450,000 to the father of a boy killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting after he filed a defamation lawsuit against conspiracy theorist writers who claimed the massacre never happened.

A Dane County jury Tuesday decided the amount James Fetzer must pay Leonard Pozner, whose 6-year-old son Noah was among the 26 victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

Fetzer and Mike Palacek co-wrote a book, “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.” A judge earlier ruled Pozner was defamed by statements in the book that claimed he fabricated copies of his son’s death certificate.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports Fetzer, a retired Minnesota professor, plans to appeal the award. Palacek reached a settlement with Pozner last month. The terms were not disclosed.

As the Wisconsin State Journal reports . . .

Pozner is among a group of Sandy Hook parents whose defamation case against right-wing conspiracy theorist and “Infowars” host Alex Jones is pending. Pozner has filed other Sandy Hook-related litigation and founded the nonprofit HONR Network, which seeks to counter online hoaxes and harassment.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Hurting somebody’s feelings is not defamation. I’d love to see what bullshit theory these clowns came up with to claim actual monetary damages. By the logic of this case, I could sue the San Fran city council for defamation because they called the NRA a terrorist organization, and by extension every member a terrorist. If the Washington Post is not liable for defamation over their publication of blatant falsehoods over the Covington Kids episode, I don’t see how a lesser standard can apply to any other publication.

    • Purposefully telling provable lies about someone in a published work, in order to make them out to be a criminal, is most certainly defamation. It also hurts people’s feelings, but that is entirely beside the point. And yes, the NRA (and possibly its broader membership) may actually have a case of some kind against San Fran.

      • Except that the standard for defamation of public figures is absurdly high. You have to prove belief by the publisher that the statement was false. Short of a signed confession by the publisher, it’s an impossible standard. Look at the Covington Kids case for how random people caught in a YouTube video were not protected. This guy was an activist. Any argument that he wasn’t a public figure is absurd on his face.

        • The father of a victim of Sandy Hook is probably not a public figure. Moreover, accusing someone of a crime, which is exactly what these authors did, is slander per se, meaning it is unnecessary to prove actual damages; damages are presumed. Although truth is a defense, I am pretty sure that these fools could not prove their contention that the death certificate was forged. All it takes is for the coroner to testify as to its authenticity and they are toast.

          Every time there is some mass shooting, someone is posting an article that day or no later than the following day saying that it was a false flag operation–of course with absolutely no personal information or proof to back it up. They must get off on such antics somehow.

        • Jones lied about Sandy Hook then said he shouldn’t have said that, but he had a good reason to do it. Now he lost his case because the video evidence is not a deep fake. He said what he said on his broadcast multiple times. Now he has to pay a little money for his lies he used to earn a lot more money.

          Alex Jones is one of the biggest liars out there. Not one person that used to work for him supports him these days. Jones is all about the money now. Everyone left him because he has become a disinfo agent who hides the truth and makes up lies.

        • I doubt the jury considered this father an activist, even though he is now in the public eye. I certainly wouldn’t, even though he advocates publicly for certain positions and policies. He was thrust into that position by a murderer who killed his child one week before Christmas. He’s not all that famous, and no jury in the world is going to let a sleazy conspiracy-peddler hide behind the notion of “public figure” to get away with lying about him, and rightfully so.

        • His public figure status is a matter of law for a judge, not a matter of fact for a jury. In the Covington case a judge already held that the kids in question were public figures. It legally doesn’t matter if the claim is a lie. The same standards should apply.

        • Actually the standard isn’t that high. The standard is “known or should have known.” Most reasonable people would go along with that.

        • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
          “Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves “actual malice” — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292″

          It’s rather hard to prove recklessness on the part of conspiracy theorists. They do an absurd amount of “research”… the result may be wrong, but you can’t possibly show recklessness.

        • Just registering my support for Infowars to balance some of the criticism, in this thread, of Alex Jones. Every day, I check 7 news sources, including Infowars. Infowars tends to hyperbolic headlines in their interpretations but they are usually accurate in reporting. Far more so than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The NYT, WaPo, NPR, or Reuters.

          Yes, aside from my regular 7, I also surf some of the mainstream sites.

          I shop at the Infowars store regularly. We have a lot of experience with food supplement companies and have found Infowars products to be high quality. Mike Adams (Natural News) has tested Infowars products in his state-of-the-art food lab and says those he has tested are among the purest and most potent.

          So, even though Alex Jones has a lot of critics, even on the right, I will stick with and support Infowars.

      • Folks, here’s Sergei again, defending those who called the dead children of Sandy Hook a fraud and conspiracy.

        A jury of his peers, as required by the United States Constitution, found the author of the book guilty of lying about dead children.

        Yet Sergei has posted multiple times defending the lying, money grubbing author.

        Do we need to know anything more about the character of this person?

        • Yes… how dare I demand that the court adhere to SCotUS precedent? Or do you want every single main-stream media company to be owned by the Trump organization after they get taken to court for publishing “muh’ Russia” conspiracy theories they knew were false or as one of their sock puppets got caught on tape… “a nothingburger”

          But I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked that a commie scumbag like you has as little respect for the 1st amendment as you do for the 2nd.

        • We know that A.Nobody is right all the time and B. His batting average is way, way better than yours.

        • you talk/type like you’re in a Soviet mock-trial even when you’re trying to come across as a “regular joe” forum lurker. Work on it shareblue

    • Agree.
      I did not read the book, so, I only know what people report it says, which means I know nothing about it at all. However, the jury may have seen this as a case of poor, grieving father against conspiracy publisher. We all know how that plays out, regardless of the facts.

      BTW, I have several times heard Alex Jones challenge anyone to provide evidence that he supported the Sandy Hook hoax theory. I HAVE heard him say the theory promoted it the book is interesting and the evidence it presents is worth reading.

      • Which would be a great reason to fight this case as far as possible. As a matter of law, the plaintiff can’t prove defamation. If the 1st amendment protects a multi-million dollar publication attempting to destroy the lives of a handful of high school kids over an out of context YouTube video, I don’t see how a lesser standard can apply to a guy publishing his theories about an activist.

        • “I don’t see”

          Yeah, we get it. You should probably not be trying to argue fine points of law.

        • Ok kiddo… cite SCotUS case law on point. Because if a college coach is considered a public figure, a political activist certainly qualifies.

        • The Covington Kids are only “public figures” because legacy media like the WaPo made them so by lying about them, but the media can say anything it wants about them because hey, public figures.

          Meanwhile, this Pozner guy arguably *makes himself* into a public figure by doing the activist thing in the national media sphere, but he gets damages paid.

          It’s probably right that he should…but the fact that he does and the Covington Catholic kids don’t makes me think we’ve got a Catch-22 going on here.

    • It actually can be considered slander/libel. However, as you noted, The pendulum swings both ways, and yes, you in-fact could sue, and the NRA did sue SF. And I imagine that when Trump is out of office, he will likley sue the hell out of a lot of left wing publications.

    • It does not seem to matter that Sandy Hook WAS a False Flag.

      This is a great example of what public brainwashing can accomplish for the Globalist Elites and their agenda.

      Try making the case that 9/11 was a false flag (it was) sometime and see what you get.

      • Try making the case that 9/11 was a false flag (it was) sometime and see what you get.

        Under what pretence? Let me guess, the jet fuel angle, right? Jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at well over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. Guess what, even structural steel becomes like a wet noodle at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. Go visit an iron forge sometime and you can see exactly what I’m talking about. Get steel that hot with enough force and even structural steel is going to give. Some people need to keep their tin cap on and stay in their hole.

        • Except the steel never reached 1,800*F, it reached, at best, 600*F making it around 132% /stronger/ than room temperature.

          • So that must mean you are one of those that believes the government planted thermite on the structural support members of the twin towers, right? Apparently they don’t make tin hats thick enough for some people. Fly a airliner into any building and shits going to happen without much help from outside sources. Yep sorry that kool-aid doesn’t go down well either. I like to think rationally for myself not buy into every asinine scheme that comes down the pike. That conspiracy theory isn’t rationale. Knuckle head terrorists flying an airliner into a building? Now that’s rational. How do I come to that conclusion? I got to see how they operate first hand in 03 Baghdad Iraq. That’s proof enough for me.

        • Don’t forget to tell the “truthers” that guy who made loose change admitted he doctored hours of 9/11 footage to make it seem like there was may more to the conspiracy theory. Also, he admitted he made up the entire film simply to “get rich”. Thanks to him, there’s so much altered 9/11 footage online now that it’s actually hard to find the real stuff.

      • Are you saying that those children at Sandy Hook elementary were fake or never killed by that nutjob that had easy access to guns in his house?

        Please tell us.

    • The level for defamation is much lower for a private citizen than for a public official or Hollywood star. Just like when Elon Musk defamed the guy who worked the cave rescue in Thailand by calling him a “pedo”. Now Musk is being sued, probably very successfully, by the guy he defamed. You can’t just run around writing books or tweet false information about someone and think that’s okay. One thing if the person is public, hence the National Enquirer. But private individual? They get what they have coming and I have zero sympathy for them. The First Amendment doesn’t cover blatant lying when you defame someone with zero basis for your lies.

    • They defamed him by saying he committed a crime when he did not. The high price they are paying is “FUCK YOU!!!!!” money for saying that shit about his kid.

      I do not think it was enough. I hope Alex Jones gets hammered so hard by lawsuits that he ends up living on the street.

      People that make money off of the horrible tragedy of others by spreading lies are the worst of the worst. Right up there with child molesting priests and dirty cops.

  2. Just because they found a judge willing to punish a truth speaker does in no way validate the notion that Sandy Hook was NOT a false flag. When you see the memorial website set up to receive donations for “victims of Sandy Hook” with an SSL certificate issued DAYS before the event took place, you’ll know your position on this heinous crime must be adjusted. You should feel abject horror when you realize that not only did children die, but they were killed by U.S. government operatives who then immediately covered up their crimes; solely for the purpose to motivate emotional support for disarmament. This was NOT a single madman bent on hurting a few innocent children, this was the action of a rogue government bent on total domination of every single person in the nation.

    • It doesn’t matter if the publication was the truth or not. Defamation of public figures has an absurdly high threshold. If the Convington Kids were “public figures” I don’t see how the same standards do not apply to an activist waving a bloody shirt

      • It seems like your argument is that because the Covington case was decidedly wrongly, all defamation cases should be decided wrongly.

        • My argument is that once you get up on a soap box, you’re a public figure. The Convington Kids didn’t get on a box, this clown did. At that point, I lost any feeling I had for him beyond contempt.

          This and the Convington cases are both ripe for SCotUS review to properly definite the limits of who is and is not a “public figure” under Sullivan.

        • No, the point he’s trying to make is that the law needs to be applied CONSISTENTLY and fairly.

          If the Covington Catholic kids are public figures — simply because some people with big megaphones lied about them, btw — then somebody like Pozner, who stood up on a soapbox in the public eye *on purpose*, sure as hell should be too.

          There actually is a legal standard, but it’s not being applied. Right now the legal situation in these cases is more like Catch-22 than anything else.

          • So instead of blowing sunshine up the Supreme Courts ass lets say it like it should be…the Supreme Court was wrong! How about that?

      • I take it you are so involved with the Covington kids case because they were your children who were viociously killed when a native American who in reality is the top agent in Mossad threw bird seed which resulted in their deaths by metal bird beaks as robotic pigeons descended on the helpless lads. Birds who were created by the lizard people to take out rogue milita and top commentators on TTAG.

        Oh sorry, I was channeling whatever the hello burley was smoking.

        • Yeah… I happen to be of the radical opinion that Sullivan was one of the best decisions in SCotUS history and that the definition of public figure needs to be strictly defined to avoid the retardation where a bunch of kids on a school trip are “public figures” while a scumbag using his kid’s coffin as a soap box is not.

        • Proof is the child dead and buried due to the shooting. That’s all the proof that’s needed. Nope in this case I hope they have to pay every penny. I don’t feel sorry for them in the least. Some things have to remain off limits. For the sake of morality, ethics, and just plain right and wrong. If not than nothing is sacred.

        • Again, if Sullivan applies, as I think it should, then it doesn’t matter what the facts are, this guy has every right to publish whatever he wants. Just because you or I find his publications objectionable does not give us the right to shut him down.

      • “My argument is that once you get up on a soap box, you’re a public figure.”

        If that’s the case anyone that comments here, Fakebook, Twitter, or any other social media outlet is a public figure. Hell I bet you yourself are a Rockstar under that standard. Saying that something is a conspiracy is one thing. Saying someone faked their own kids death when it can easily be proven is something totally different. Not only is it different it’s just plain fucking wrong. If you can’t see that you need to get off the sauce and drugs and pull your head out. I promise you if someone accused me publicly of faking my child’s death after they had really died I’d bring the same suit. I would have no problem taking them for all they are worth either. At that point the gloves are off and I fight dirty.

        • What he said legally doesn’t matter. Either Sullivan applies or it does not. Once you appear in front of Congress to lobby for legislation, pretending you’re not a public figure is absurd. Comparing that to a social media post is absurd and you know its absurd.

          It doesn’t matter if you like what this guy published or not. The simple matter is that they can’t prove “actual malice” as defined under Sullivan. Publishing crazy rants is not libel. If it was, Trump would own CNN and MSNBC.

    • “not only did children die, but they were killed by U.S. government operatives who then immediately covered up their crimes; solely for the purpose to motivate emotional support for disarmament.”

      Friend, you have lost your grasp on reality. I beg of you, turn your lethal weapons over to a responsible member of your family or a trusted friend before you completely break with reality and cause a great tragedy.

      • That’s rich coming from you. You’re just as mentally deranged as Alex Jones so don’t even get on that high horse.

    • Burley,

      Brave of you to post your view of this.

      I did not read the book, but have seen everything Barry Sotoro published on this topic.

      All I can conclude is that the official government narrative is ‘fur schiese’.

  3. Good.
    We don’t need people spouting this crazy bullshit, making our entire side of the gun argument out to be tinfoil hat whack jobs. And the victim’s families damn sure don’t need the false labels to their character, having their grief dragged out and capitalized upon. That’s CNN’s job and there’s no need for us to sink to that level.

    • What’s good for the goose. The SCotUS needs to set strict definitions of what constitutes a “public figure”. There’s no practical way to prove “actual malice” in a court, so the only case where Sullivan doesn’t apply is where the plaintiff was not a “public figure”.

      I’m always on the side of more speech. If you don’t like this guy’s book, don’t read it.

      • Stop bringing up SCOTUS. The Supreme Court can change precedent on a whim depending on the Justices that sit on the bench at the time. They can even decide the court was wrong at a later date and the next thing everyone knows precedent changes. Precedent is what the court says it is at the time. Most usually that is dependent on on which way the political winds are blowing.

        • If the law doesn’t matter, then what are we talking about here?

          Current case law states that any publication against a “public figure” needs to show “actual malice” to constitute libel.

          If publishing crazy conspiracy theories constituted “actual malice” then Trump would own CNN and MSNBC. If being a political activist who has appeared in front of congress does not constitute a “public figure” then how the hell are kids on a school trip “public figures”?

          • Oh and Trump has offered nothing but condolences for any mass shooting. Even if Trump did think the dipshitocrats had something to do with it he did not say the deaths were staged. That’s the problem here. Not the conspiracy theory agenda but that a death actually did occur and these idiots are saying that death or deaths are a lie. I’m pretty fucking cold hearted at times but even I have limits. Pulling a cloud of bullshit over a child’s death and their grieving parents is going too far.

        • Serge. If accusing a grieving father of faking his son’s murder, which murder actually occurred, isn’t considered ‘malice’ what would be? Especially since the ‘people’ doing the accusing know damn well the murder actually occurred and they are simply trying to vulture up money from the tragedy.

        • Short of the respondent admitting to that on the stand or in admissible hearsay, you have no legal way to prove that.

          • Let’s take a poll of who thinks accusing a grieving parent of faking their child’s death when the death can be proven is not only right but prudent? That is in the eyes of a reasonable person of course. I consider myself pretty reasonable in a not so reasonable, politically charged society. Clearly I don’t think it’s right or prudent.

            So I ask, what say you (anyone)?

        • No One…

          What you, I, or a poll may think on the issue is irrelevant. The precedent is rock solid.

          You’d have to prove that the publisher either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the veracity of his statements. Against a conspiracy theorist, showing recklessness is quite a stretch. His conclusions may be wrong, but a room full of red string is rather good evidence to disprove recklessness.

        • Whoa, slow down there hoss! The precedent is only as rock solid as the Supreme Court says it is. Think they can’t renig on a ruling? Wrong! They have and that sets the precedent that they can again as they see fit.

        • Given that Sullivan has only expanded in scope over the past 55 years? Unlikely. The could would have to completely about face. Given the right wing of the Supreme Court is not likely to restrict the 1st amendment rights of individuals, I’m not that concerned.

          In any case, what matters is the law as it is now. As it is now, the plaintiff is a public figure due to his political activities and as such black letter law states that the plaintiff has to show that either the respondent knew that the statements were false or that the respondent didn’t bother to do any work before he published. The former is a legal impossibility and the latter is almost impossible to prove. Simple fact is that this case should never have gone to a jury. Just because the statement is false and you find it offensive does not make it defamation. That’s textbook reversible error.

          • I’m sure it will be appealed. If the Supreme Court even decides to hear the case. Given their track record thus far I bet they won’t. They don’t want to kick that dog. Not now and not as long as we have a very clear cut division coast to coast politically.

        • This won’t hit the court until long after Ruthie is confirmed dead and Trump has appointed her replacement. Hell, we might have a 7:2 conservative split by the time this makes it up to their level.

      • When you claim someone faked their child’s death certificate? If that isn’t malicious, what is?

        It is pretty obvious he didn’t do any research, just sat at his computer and made it up out of thin air. If that’s not malicious toward the parent, what is?

        The law is what it is and I have no problem with it. Alex Jones is a wingnut. I read him from time to time, but always quit because he would go off the deep end from time to time. This is one of those times and it will cost him. Perhaps he should think through what he says before he says it next time.

        • Yep he should have stuck to the conspiracy theory and left the parents that lost their children out of it. Hell include the deaths in the theory even. Not say that the deaths were faked.

        • Yeah… how dare he upset genocidal commies.

          “Actual malice” in civil law isn’t defined like you think it is.

  4. ” Jones has lost a defamation suit brought by some of the victims’ families.” – THAT, is FAKE NEWS. He merely got denied ONE PHASE of appeal. The TRIAL never even started yet. STOP propagating official US Pravda (NPR) nonsense, without verifying.

    In a sane truly lawful jurisprudence world, this ‘suit’ would’ve been thrown out with a laughter by the 1st judge who read the docket. There is ZERO basis for this civil suit. Alex Jones has been on FCC controlled airwaves for over 25yrs with nary a complaint. He NEVER incited violence, he NEVER even cited the individuals suing him by name, nor EVER encouraged his audience to harass or target them. There is literally NO CASE. And this is still motherfucking America. He could believe and air that the Sandy Hook was done by Martians dressed like ninjas, and it’d STILL be lawful. It’s called the 1st Amendment. This, is what happens when SJW-taliban grow up and infest govt, and the Bar.


    • The point is that the left like to use Sullivan to defame minors on a school trip as “public figures” when it suits them and then claim that their activists are not, in fact, “public figures” when it suits them the other way. The SCotUS needs to set strict definitions on what does and does not constitute a “public figure” under Sullivan. Right now, Sullivan is being used to shield gigantic multi-million dollar propaganda networks and persecute small time publishers. The exact opposite of the intent of the 1st amendment.

      • Those kids only became public figures because of the defamation campaign waged against them by the major networks and new publications while intentionally ignoring the context of the situation.

        • I should qualify that Sullivan has been expanded by Butts to not just apply to government officials, but all “public figures” without defining what a “public figure” is. That is the core of the problem. The left likes to twist the “public figure” definition as it suits them. That’s why we need the SCotUS to step in and define “public figure” to set a concrete standard.

          • “That’s why we need the SCotUS to step in and define “public figure” to set a concrete standard.”

            In this politically charged climate? Forget it, it’s not going to happen. The Supreme Court has already demonstrated they want to try and ride the fence rather than choose a side. The Justices keep trying to appease everyone rather than set a clear cut precedent that would favor one side more than the other. There’s really no need to wonder why. Socially we are already sitting on a powder keg. Too many times of the Supreme Court ruling in hard favor of a side would most definitely put the match to that keg. They don’t want that, soooo……

    • I don’t know why wacky Alex is still being sued. He has multiple times, publicly recanted his assertion, stating that Sandy Hook was not a hoax.

      • Because he’s a right wing conspiracy theorists. Left wing conspiracy theorists fearlessly spout their opinions, and they’re well paid for it.

      • If we use the same logic of de-platforming Jones, then Google, Facebook, and Twitter should have suspended CNN and MSNBC for pushing the Trump secret Russian agent conspiracy.

        • Oh look, more dirty Russian money in the Trump administration! Looks like Rudy Giuliani is one heck of a bagman for Donald Trump, 500 K for consulting is good work if you can get it. And millions to subvert American elections, all into the Republican pockets.

          That’s honor and patriotism for you.

          “The indictment, which was filed on Oct. 10 in the Southern District of New York, alleges the defendants “conspired to circumvent the federal law against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates.”

          David Correia/Social Media via the Campaign Legal Center via Reuters
          Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas and businessman David Correia appear with former U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) in a 2018 screen capture from Correia’s social media account.
          more +
          (MORE: Arrest of Giuliani associates tied to Ukraine scandal renews scrutiny on campaign finance rules)
          Court documents describe how the four defendants allegedly funneled “$1-2 million” from a Russian donor into the U.S. political system between June 2018 and April of this year.”

          Oh wait, it’s the Russia hoax, right?

        • 49er or Vlad or whoever you are, you’re such a fool, it’s almost not responding to. Foreigners attempting to gain favor with U.S. politicians isn’t ground breaking news. It happens every day in D.C. It is rarely prosecuted because people are getting rich from it. Those guys donating money to a Trump PAC doesn’t in anyway prove that Trump is a treasonous Russian agent, which was pushed, not only by the pundit class, but by the former intel chiefs that would benefit from preventing the DOJ to getting to the bottom of their scandal. Try again.

  5. Sounds like two pieces of crap trying to get rich off of other people’s misery. That’s not necessarily a crime in itself, despite being reprehensible. Going so far as to accuse others of having committed crimes and asserting scandalous acts as facts when they are pure fiction, however, is unlawful. I hope they’re bankrupted in addition to the thorough discrediting they’ve brought upon themselves.

    • That’s the entire left wing. By your logic everyone to the left of Ronald Reagan deserves to be sent to the poor house.

      The reality is that this is a case where Sullivan should have been an iron-clad defense. The only reason it was not is because the court ignored precedent. If you don’t like somebody’s book, don’t buy it or publish your own.

    • ”Sounds like two pieces of crap”

      No, one is a grieving father who son was viciously murdered by an insane man wielding an AR 15.

      The other is a greedy, self-serving, lying bastard who attempts to profit from slanderous lies with zero evidence to support his outlandish claims.

      As provided for in the US Constitution, the first gentleman petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. Following the constitution’s decrees, a court of law impaneled a jury of their peers to decide the case.
      The jury returned a judgment against the lying bastard, ordering him to pay almost a half million dollars.

      May God bless the United States Constitution.

      • Yeah… that’s not what “a redress of grievances means” you commie piece of shit. The court had no authority to order anything regarding a publication regarding a public figure. The piece of shit here is the scumbag using his kids coffin as a soap box and then claiming to not be a public figure.

        • I just KNEW you were going to call someone a commie. You need some new tricks, lest we all start thinking you’re an old dog.

        • “The piece of shit here is the scumbag using his kids coffin as a soap box”

          Have you no decency, at long last, have you no decency? We wouldn’t know Posner’s name if his son hadn’t been shot to death and conspiracy vultures like Alex Jones hit the airwaves with their cruel lies. And this isn’t just about intentional infliction of emotional distress, Alex Jones alleged Posner and others committed crimes. That’s slander, an actionable tort.

          Sergei, how about I put posters all around your neighborhood with your face with large print saying ‘warning pedophile, known child molester in our neighborhood‘, that would be perfectly acceptable under your view of free speech, right?

          We already know your game, you revealed yourself to be a Putin supporter from the Ukraine. You said you’ve been there as recently as 2014 and complained about the people overthrowing Moscow’s puppet and having a free election, and yet here you are accusing others of being Commies.

          I believe the correct term is ‘agent provocateur‘.

        • That’s no answer, do you have a valid response in you? Or just more baseless insults.

          Sergei, you do have excellent grasp of colloquial American speech mannerisms, I’ll give your trainers some credit for that.

          I would guess your hometown is Vinnytsia, Ukraine, It is obvious you spent much time there.

      • “God bless the United States Constitution.”

        Says the America hating socialist who supports the removal of the second amendment. In one breath you blame the AR15 then say hail the constitution. That’s some epic level double speak you leftist piece of trash. You’re a despicable human being who is just as bad as Alex Jones. The only difference between you and Alex Jones is his soap box is bigger and he got rich off his lies. You wish you could be the con man he is.

      • This right here. Good comment. The gun argument is a whole different story and does not even need to be part of the story for all I care.

        Fact is children were murdered at school by an mentally ill person. Then Alex Jones and other bottom feeders tried to cash in on event by spreading false lies about a man he just lost his son. Anyone defending their actions are just as bad at them. If you actually have children and actually love them I do not see how you could support Alex or the author of this book.

  6. Let us set aside “Public Figure” speech legal considerations for a moment and talk about what is righteous and what is not.

    Publicly claiming (e.g. publishing in a book) that John Q. Public fabricated a false death certificate without credible evidence is dishonorable.

    Even if you have credible evidence that the event (which allegedly caused the death) never happened, that all by itself does not establish exactly who fabricated the death certificate. Therefore, the authors of that book cannot righteously claim that the father fabricated the death certificate. They may be able to claim that the certificate is phony, but they have no basis to claim that the father fabricated it.

    Details matter.

    • Details matter.

      Indeed. I thought I could claim any theory. First amendment and all that. It sounds like some people here are okay with folks being punished for having certain opinions. Where do we draw the line on that? What if your opinion (that’s what this is about) becomes unpopular or hurts peoples feelings and the mob comes after you? Should you be protected or does it just depend on how popular the opinion is currently?

      • Apparently, in the minds of commie scumbags like comrade 49er above, publishing blatant defamation of a bunch of minors with no prior public exposure is ok, but publishing a conspiracy theory against a scumbag using dead kids as a soap box is somehow off limits.

        Basically, “the line” is wherever the treasonous commie left says it is. I mean if they were held to a consistent standard, Trump would own every major media company in the country after they published “muh’ Russia” reports that they knew for a fact were false and got caught on tape admitting were false.

        • So the reports of trumps entanglement with Russia or false?

          Oh look, more dirty Russian money in the Trump administration!

          Rudy Giuliani is one heck of a bagman for Donald Trump, 500 K for consulting is good work if you can get it. And millions to subvert American elections, all into the Republican pockets.

          That’s honor and patriotism for you.

          “The indictment, which was filed on Oct. 10 in the Southern District of New York, alleges the defendants “conspired to circumvent the federal law against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates.”

          David Correia/Social Media via the Campaign Legal Center via Reuters
          Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas and businessman David Correia appear with former U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) in a 2018 screen capture from Correia’s social media account.
          more +
          (MORE: Arrest of Giuliani associates tied to Ukraine scandal renews scrutiny on campaign finance rules)
          Court documents describe how the four defendants allegedly funneled “$1-2 million” from a Russian donor into the U.S. political system between June 2018 and April of this year.”

          Oh wait, it’s the Russia hoax, right?