In cherry's defense I think the issue here should be more than just about whether Alex Jones it in fact the titular scumbag. But legally speaking, is it possible that the real reason he's being successfully sued for slander/liber is in fact because many people think he's a scumbag? It is because of his raucous tone, intense accusations, and generally histrionic temperament? What if someone else on some other kind of show, with a somber tone, reflective personality, and friendly disposition, had, as WS put it, said the same thing "day after day, even after he knew it wasn't true." How you can prove someone "knew" something I'm not sure, as it's quite possible for smart people to disagree with evidence presented. But putting that detail aside, I wonder how much this is happening just because of who Alex Jones is rather than what he said. But that puts a wrinkle on things: he's essentially an actor (the fact that he may in fact be similar in personality to his show personality is irrelevant) doing a show to get views and sell products. Andrew Dice Clay used to play a character in his stand-up that we'd basically now call a rapist, but that doesn't mean you can literally accuse him of rape because of what his character says. Now the real question is, in regard to 'performance media', how different is stand-up really from "news" anymore? You can watch the "news" and see canned performances, and you can go see Dave Chapelle and wonder whether it's even supposed to be a comedy show. I'm not sure where the line is, artistically.
Where things get muddy is in the relation between media and viewers. Trump is often accused of "ralling a mob" because he speaks in extreme terms and gets people revved up. But if getting people revved up is his 'character' (again, putting aside whether he is in fact personally like his character) then isn't he just performing? But then again, doesn't he have any responsibility if his words cause bad effects? But then again again, all of us use words that can have bad effects, sometimes horrible effects I imagine, even for things we think are no big deal. Should we be held to account for all of those too? I say a harsh word to someone, they go home angry, push their spouse too far, and the spouse murders them. Am I up for inciting a murder? I did in fact materially contribute to it, if you follow the simple logic, and it could have been averted if I have been more circumspect. But if we go this route, to quote Hamlet, use every man according to his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?
I dunno. I think people don't understand yet the mutual relationship we all have with each other. Everyone wants to find out "who" is "responsible" for a bad thing happening. In Jones' case maybe it's kind of obvious that his screaming fans were pursuing these families and making them miserable directly because of what Jones said. But...why were they such miserable sods that a guy like Jones could get them to do that? I've watched Jones in the past, never went out attacking anyone. There are other issues in play too, such as MSM contributions to the mythos of shootings, whether copycats get their ideas from media lionization, and even the actual possibility that a false flag could occur (whether or not it did in this case). When your government lies to you enough you start to get the idea that maybe people are lying to you all the time. Who's "responsible" for that?
