The left wing seems to want free speech for me but not for thee.

If this trial went all the way through it seems only proper to sue MSNBC and CNN for several billion. We can directly tie the assassination attempts on a former sitting president to their violent rhetoric. They have literally used terms such as “kill”. Twitch streamers should similarly be bankrupted for even more violent rhetoric.

Fact of the matter is I am unaware of any case Jones called for this behavior. If you say something and a crowd interprets it differently that is covered by the first amendment. This isn’t a “fire in a theater” situation this is trying to use a relatively unliked character to get your foot in the door for widespread censorship.

It’s good for everyone that this didn’t go through. If you want to persecute someone go directly to the people making the threats and make an example of them. This is already illegal. Jones case was yet another left wing lawfare battle in a long war to establish completely censorship of wrongthink under the banner of “fact checkers” and “misinformation”.

The sandy hook promise people are professional lawfare soldiers. They’ve also found an end around to killing the 2nd amendment - suing gun companies into the ground. Much like BLM we aren’t allowed to ask any questions about it.

Dude you are uninformed! Jones profited off the sandy hook families, elevated people like halzig, and accused the parents of being crisis actors which directly led to harassment. Jones is the one with the platform spreading these lies and that is why he got sued.

Also he certainly may have won the defamation cases against him. Too bad he totally made a joke of the process which led to the default judgement. Maybe he thought providing the discovery info was worse?

Listen to his depositions yourself if you don't believe me. Jones is a sociopath.

FFS, nobody is stopping him from speaking! He's being held accountable for his own words. You have it completely backwards: this is Free Speech in action.

If someone started a rumour that “the_optimist on HN sleeps with seventeen goats every Thursday” and you started getting calls of people saying “you’re a pervert for sleeping with seventeen goats”, it would be quite obvious what motivated the call, would it not?

Before calling something impossible, consider the bare minimum effort to skim the linked article, or read any article on this subject. It is in fact quite trivial and provable.

Your hypothetical is neither trivial nor provable.

How does one identify the “first mover”? How does one identify the integrity of the “calls”? What if the calls are a single caller represented separately? What if the calls are falsely represented by motive?

What if I, in fact, have today received 400 calls on the matter you have stated? Am I eligible to sue you?

How can you prove that the person sending a death threat was specifically motivated by a specific, broad act of speech? This is an impossible, unenforceable premise. It has no basis in law either in theory or practice.

Example lines of inquiry: How does one identify the “first mover”? How does one identify the integrity of the “calls”? What if the calls are a single caller represented separately? What if the calls are falsely represented by motive?