The Official Alex Jones Thread!

[eerok]

Exactly what crime was committed?

The prankster told a fib!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the only thing the "Prankster" did was to put the idea in the mind of Alex Jones and all his listeners and fans to weaponize this technology against Democrats.

Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman are kicking themselves for not doing robocalls with fake Democrat speeches.
Expect Infowars, Newsmax and Fox to air faked Pelosi and Schiff calls about how they love to drink the blood of the babies they murdered.

 

[dudalb]

Alex Jones haz big mad.

Fuming Alex Jones Calls for Tucker Carlson Prankster to Be Arrested (thedailybeast)

Let Them FIght!

 

[dudalb]

Indeed, "client control" is a mark of professionalism among attorneys. I've been rebuked by attorneys representing me for even innocent breaches of decorum or etiquette. When the client goes on the air or on social media excoriating the judge in his case and calling her names, this does reflect very badly on the attorney. So then yeah, only the most desperate lawyers—if any—are going to sign up for that.

But Jones seems to consistently fail upwards. He lost his cases in the stupidest way possible. But his followers still believe he's been railroaded by an unfair and biased judicial system that muzzled him and wouldn't let him defend himself. Among those same followers he's likely to enjoy the belief that his attempts to hide his righteous and wholesome wealth from the vultures feeding off him is just another miscarriage of justice. None of the people who still support him really seem to understand just how laws and courts work. So Jones can just tell them any old thing he likes and they'll still send him money.

A little late with this, but my sister, who is a praticing attorney, can rant endlessly about how how much time she has to spend keeping clients from destroying their own case.

 

[Segnosaur]

Alex Jones haz big mad.

Fuming Alex Jones Calls for Tucker Carlson Prankster to Be Arrested (thedailybeast)

Exactly what crime was committed?

Supposedly it can be illegal to make "prank calls", but it depends on the jurisdiction.

From: Legal Reach
Yes, making prank calls is against the law and is also considered a form of harassment or threats. Prank calls may result in fines, jail time, or both... Prank calls might include falsehoods and practical jokes such as claiming to be from the authorities or using vulgar language. They frequently involve tricking people and disguising themselves by altering their voice.... Prank callers occasionally even use technology to record their conversations for review or replay....Furthermore, making a prank call on someone else's phone or computer may result in accusations of unauthorised access to telecommunications equipment.... Prank call victims may also file a civil lawsuit against the caller... In general, placing a prank call may incur fines that range from a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars, depending on the situation....A person found guilty of prank calling is often subject to a sentence of up to one year in prison. However, more severe punishments, like longer prison sentences or fines, may be applied depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the prank call...

If it wasn't Alex Jones, such "Prank Calls" might be considered an actual serious issue.

ETA: Since the caller was supposedly from Canada, I believe this is the part of the criminal code that is relevant...

From: Government of Canada
372 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.
(2) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to alarm or annoy a person, makes an indecent communication to that person or to any other person by a means of telecommunication.
(3) Everyone commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with intent to harass a person, repeatedly communicates, or causes repeated communications to be made, with them by a means of telecommunication.
(4) Everyone who commits an offence under this section is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Not a lawyer, but "pretending" to be Tucker Carlson in a call to Jones would probably violate 372(1) "conveying information that is false", and (2) had an "intent to annoy" a person.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Supposedly it can be illegal to make "prank calls", but it depends on the jurisdiction.

From: Legal Reach
Yes, making prank calls is against the law and is also considered a form of harassment or threats. Prank calls may result in fines, jail time, or both... Prank calls might include falsehoods and practical jokes such as claiming to be from the authorities or using vulgar language. They frequently involve tricking people and disguising themselves by altering their voice.... Prank callers occasionally even use technology to record their conversations for review or replay....Furthermore, making a prank call on someone else's phone or computer may result in accusations of unauthorised access to telecommunications equipment.... Prank call victims may also file a civil lawsuit against the caller... In general, placing a prank call may incur fines that range from a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars, depending on the situation....A person found guilty of prank calling is often subject to a sentence of up to one year in prison. However, more severe punishments, like longer prison sentences or fines, may be applied depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the prank call...

If it wasn't Alex Jones, such "Prank Calls" might be considered an actual serious issue.

ETA: Since the caller was supposedly from Canada, I believe this is the part of the criminal code that is relevant...

From: Government of Canada
372 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.
(2) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to alarm or annoy a person, makes an indecent communication to that person or to any other person by a means of telecommunication.
(3) Everyone commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with intent to harass a person, repeatedly communicates, or causes repeated communications to be made, with them by a means of telecommunication.
(4) Everyone who commits an offence under this section is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Not a lawyer, but "pretending" to be Tucker Carlson in a call to Jones would probably violate 372(1) "conveying information that is false", and (2) had an "intent to annoy" a person.

They could claim to have been doing so for entertainment and thus be excused from having to be honest like corporations that control "news" networks get to do.

Good for the goose and all that...

 

[Segnosaur]

Supposedly it can be illegal to make "prank calls", but it depends on the jurisdiction.

They could claim to have been doing so for entertainment and thus be excused from having to be honest like corporations that control "news" networks get to do.

Good for the goose and all that...

Possibly. I know there are situations where public figures are treated differently than private individuals with respect to "humor", so MAYBE the prank calls to Jones will be covered under that. Or more likely the prosecutors won't care to follow up.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm pretty sure prank calling isn't illegal in the UK, because if it was impressionist Jon Culshaw would be in prison. He prank called umpteen celebrities whilst pretending to be someone else for the BBC 4 radio show Dead Ringers. He most famously called Tony Blair (then PM) whilst pretending to be William Hague (then leader of the opposition) and managed to get put through, though Blair rumbled him.

 

[wollery]

...snip...

Since the caller was supposedly from Canada, I believe this is the part of the criminal code that is relevant...

From: Government of Canada
372 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.
(2) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to alarm or annoy a person, makes an indecent communication to that person or to any other person by a means of telecommunication.
(3) Everyone commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with intent to harass a person, repeatedly communicates, or causes repeated communications to be made, with them by a means of telecommunication.
(4) Everyone who commits an offence under this section is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Not a lawyer, but "pretending" to be Tucker Carlson in a call to Jones would probably violate 372(1) "conveying information that is false", and (2) had an "intent to annoy" a person.

Except the "annoy" part belongs to subsection (2), whereas subsection (1) says "intent to injure or alarm". The two are separate and specific.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm pretty sure prank calling isn't illegal in the UK, because if it was impressionist Jon Culshaw would be in prison. He prank called umpteen celebrities whilst pretending to be someone else for the BBC 4 radio show Dead Ringers. He most famously called Tony Blair (then PM) whilst pretending to be William Hague (then leader of the opposition) and managed to get put through, though Blair rumbled him.

Its possible that it illegal there, but just rarely enforced, either by the police (who might consider the crime to be "too petty" to follow up on), or in the case of public figures, by the victims themselves (who may not want to press charges because they would be seen as "lacking humor" by the public at large).

 

[Segnosaur]

Since the caller was supposedly from Canada, I believe this is the part of the criminal code that is relevant...

From: Government of Canada
372 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.
(2) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to alarm or annoy a person, makes an indecent communication to that person or to any other person by a means of telecommunication.
...
Not a lawyer, but "pretending" to be Tucker Carlson in a call to Jones would probably violate 372(1) "conveying information that is false", and (2) had an "intent to annoy" a person.

Except the "annoy" part belongs to subsection (2), whereas subsection (1) says "intent to injure or alarm". The two are separate and specific.

I know they are 2 separate subsections. I pointed out both as 2 different ways a prank call could be considered illegal... either as "conveying false information" (by impersonating Carlson) or with the "intent to annoy" (by publicly humiliating Jones).

 

[smartcooky]

Duplicate post

 

[smartcooky]

Except the "annoy" part belongs to subsection (2), whereas subsection (1) says "intent to injure or alarm". The two are separate and specific.

Not to mention that "annoy" only applies to a specific type of communication.

(2) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to alarm or annoy a person, makes an indecent communication to that person or to any other person by a means of telecommunication.​

So, even if the call to Tucker Scumbag was intended to annoy him, no law would be broken if the call was not an indecent one...

ETA:

I know they are 2 separate subsections. I pointed out both as 2 different ways a prank call could be considered illegal... either as "conveying false information" (by impersonating Carlson) or with the "intent to annoy" (by publicly humiliating Jones).

Nope, subsection 1 doesn't apply either

(1) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.​

"Conveying false information" (by impersonating Carlson) wuld not be an offence under that act either, unless there is a proven intent to injure or alarm.

Two things would both have to be proven for a prosecution to succeed

First, a prosecutor would need to prove the caller made the call "with intent to injure or alarm" the alleged victim.

Second, a prosecutor would need to prove the alleged victim suffered harm.

No LEO in his right mind would waste time writing the caller up for this, and even if one did, no prosecutor in their right mind would go for an indictment with the deck stacked so heavily against them.

 

[Segnosaur]

Nope, subsection 1 doesn't apply either

(1) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.​

"Conveying false information" (by impersonating Carlson) wuld not be an offence under that act either, unless there is a proven intent to injure or alarm.

Two things would both have to be proven for a prosecution to succeed
First, a prosecutor would need to prove the caller made the call "with intent to injure or alarm" the alleged victim.
Second, a prosecutor would need to prove the alleged victim suffered harm.

My assumption was that the caller had the intent to embarrass Jones (which would be the "intent to injure").

Proving actual harm might be a more difficult thing, since Jone's buffoonery would probably make him immune from that sort of harm through embarrassment.

No LEO in his right mind would waste time writing the caller up for this, and even if one did, no prosecutor in their right mind would go for an indictment with the deck stacked so heavily against them.

I agree... no cop or prosecutor would waste their time with this case.

I'm just saying that in THEORY such a call might be considered illegal, had it been done under similar circumstances but with a different 'victim'.

 

[Checkmite]

Nope, subsection 1 doesn't apply either

(1) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.​

"Conveying false information" (by impersonating Carlson) wuld not be an offence under that act either, unless there is a proven intent to injure or alarm.

Devil's advocate: given that the pranker went public with this, it's obvious the intent was to humiliate Jones. I wonder if a lawyer could successfully argue that public humiliation could be considered an injury for the purpose of this law, in the same way that for example "damage" can apply to physical damage but also just a reputational hit.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Simple answer: there is no harm, since Jones benefited from the call way more than his reputation or income was hurt.

 

[Mashuna]

Is it possible to lower Alex Jones' reputation any further?

 

[dudalb]

Is it possible to lower Alex Jones' reputation any further?

I have every confidecne Alex will find a way.....

 

[Orphia Nay]

Alex Jones spent over $93,000 in July. Sandy Hook families are yet to see a dime.

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — As Alex Jones continues telling his Infowars audience about his money problems and pleads for them to buy his products, his own documents show life is not all that bad — his net worth is around $14 million and his personal spending topped $93,000 in July alone, including thousands of dollars on meals and entertainment.

The conspiracy theorist and his lawyers file monthly financial reports in his personal bankruptcy case, and the latest one has struck a nerve with the families of victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. They’re still seeking the $1.5 billion they won last year in lawsuits against Jones and his media company for repeatedly calling the 2012 massacre a hoax on his shows.

https://apnews.com/article/34192bd7d89ed786f64580682f6ea89e

 

[smartcooky]

There really needs to be a court order to start seizing his assets!