Merged Newtown (Sandy Hook) Shooting Conspiracy Theories In 3..2..1....

[Azrael 5]

Anyone explain why these truthers get away with abusing families of SandyHook? I understand free speech but I frequent Digital Spy forum and any posts about Madeleine Mcann/parents are swiftly deleted for fear of libel. Why isnt that allowed under free speech?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Anyone explain why these truthers get away with abusing families of SandyHook? I understand free speech but I frequent Digital Spy forum and any posts about Madeleine Mcann/parents are swiftly deleted for fear of libel. Why isnt that allowed under free speech?

IANAL, but I believe the families are considered "limited public figures" for purposes of discussion of the Sandy Hook story, so winning a libel suit against these trolls would require proving "actual malice", which is an extremely high bar to clear.

ETA: I should have also mentioned that a) fear of even an unsuccessful lawsuit is often an incentive for web sites to censor potentially libelous posts, and b) some of Britain's libel laws are rather draconian.

 

[The Atheist]

Anyone explain why these truthers get away with abusing families of SandyHook?

Much better they're allowed to say it openly so they can be equally openly vilified by the 99.99% of people who think know they're slime.

 

[threadworm]

Unfortunately, it looks like he was fired for failing to properly report on his conspiracist activities, rather than for bringing discredit upon his university by his loathsome behavior toward the victims' families.

It was probably the best thing the University could fire him for that would stick.

Hope he enjoys his unemployment.

And that he never works again.

 

[Hans]

It was probably the best thing the University could fire him for that would stick.

Hope he enjoys his unemployment.

And that he never works again.

He could find employment as a teacher overseas they don't always pay attention to such details.

 

[Garrison]

Much better they're allowed to say it openly so they can be equally openly vilified by the 99.99% of people who think know they're slime.

Great and that's had exactly what effect on them so far? One college professor loses his job, and that it appears was for some procedural faling rather than tormenting grieving parents. We are talking about the kind of person who wants attention, and if that attention consists of everyone else being outraged by their behaviour so be it. These people are treating tormenting grieving parents like a hobby and they will carry on doing so until it carries real consequences.

 

[The Atheist]

Great and that's had exactly what effect on them so far?

When the alternative is banning free speech because an incredibly small number of scum are hurting people's feelings, that would be a much worse option.

Europe's done it with Holocaust denial, but I don't see that it's stopped attacks on synagogues across the Eurozone and elsewhere.

 

[BStrong]

I hope somewhere is a bullet with Halbig's name on it.

Better to live out his sad life.

 

[threadworm]

When the alternative is banning free speech because an incredibly small number of scum are hurting people's feelings, that would be a much worse option.

Europe's done it with Holocaust denial, but I don't see that it's stopped attacks on synagogues across the Eurozone and elsewhere.

Agreed - let them hang themselves with their own testimony, but they can fund it themselves rather than get an unwitting employer subsidise their vile spewings.

 

[Garrison]

When the alternative is banning free speech because an incredibly small number of scum are hurting people's feelings, that would be a much worse option.

Europe's done it with Holocaust denial, but I don't see that it's stopped attacks on synagogues across the Eurozone and elsewhere.

Basically the same arguements as the NRA.

The government wants to implement background checks for gun purchasers = "You want to take away our guns!"

The government introduces laws that make you accountable for you say = "You're banning free speech"

The goverment has introduced gun controls = "But it hasn't eliminated all gun deaths so it's completely failed!"

The government has introduced laws against hate speech = "But it hasn't stopped all hate crimes so it's worthless."

It's the same lazy arguments. Defining the limits of free speech (and there are limits) is hard work, much easier to simply point at the 1st amendment and say "eh, sorry nothing we can do."

 

[Garrison]

Better to live out his sad life.

What makes you think his life is sad? He has a little clique of people online telling him how great and courageous he is for taking on 'the system'. This is a person without a shred of empathy and as long as the law can't touch him he's having a whale of a time.

 

[The Atheist]

It's the same lazy arguments. Defining the limits of free speech (and there are limits) is hard work, much easier to simply point at the 1st amendment and say "eh, sorry nothing we can do."

I'll ignore the silly analogy. Makes a change from Godwin, I guess.

The point you're missing is that all of our governments have a recent history of restricting the right to free speech and protest.

What's the difference between Sandy Hook deniers and 9/11 conspiracists? Kennedy Conspiracists? What's the difference between a Sandy Hook denier and that clown who collected a punch in the mouth for calling Buzz Aldrin a coward? Or SH deniers and Westboro Church?

Where do you want to draw the line at stopping speech that upsets people?

Who is going to be responsible for drawing that line and enforcing its position?

 

[Garrison]

I'll ignore the silly analogy. Makes a change from Godwin, I guess.

The point you're missing is that all of our governments have a recent history of restricting the right to free speech and protest.

What's the difference between Sandy Hook deniers and 9/11 conspiracists? Kennedy Conspiracists? What's the difference between a Sandy Hook denier and that clown who collected a punch in the mouth for calling Buzz Aldrin a coward? Or SH deniers and Westboro Church?

Where do you want to draw the line at stopping speech that upsets people?

Who is going to be responsible for drawing that line and enforcing its position?

Those are the question a funtional society has to answer, not just say 'first amendment' and cop out of the debate as so many in the USA do. I think the analogy with guns is apt, defenders of the 1st and 2nd amendments both like to pretend they are absolutes. No right can be unlimited, that's what courts and governments are supposed to be for, defining those limits.

 

[BStrong]

What makes you think his life is sad? He has a little clique of people online telling him how great and courageous he is for taking on 'the system'. This is a person without a shred of empathy and as long as the law can't touch him he's having a whale of a time.

Because it takes one miserable little prick to come up with his bag full of crazy.

 

[Matthew Best]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/the-sandy-hook-hoax.html

Looks like Pozner is fighting back.