June 25, 2024

Source: Bigstock

Following last week’s column on Alex Jones and his “boo-hoo the feds are after me” Crybaby Tour ’24, I heard from several readers (via my Substack) who slammed my sympathy for the parents who won the defamation suits (there were three lawsuits, in Texas and Connecticut).

One example:

If I was a parent of one of those murdered kids I wouldn’t give a flying fuck what Jones, or Biden, or Tucker, or anyone else had to say about it; words spoken by TV talking heads would be meaningless compared to the murder of my child. This money-grubbing shakedown of Alex Jones puts the Sandy Hook parents in a different light. I call BS on them being “tortured” by Alex’s statements—words are NOT torture. You CANNOT turn off torture like you can so easily turn off Alex Jones. Comparing hurtful words to torture is namby-pamby horse shit, it’s a see-through ploy for cashing in on dead kids. These parents being rewarded a $1.5 billion payout over spoken words is insane.

There’s a disingenuousness to that comment. Technically, the dude’s beef is with defamation law as an entity, the concept that spoken words can “harm” to the extent that an aggrieved party should be awarded money. That he doesn’t phrase it that way—that he attacks the parents, not the laws that have existed in the U.S. and other Western nations for centuries—betrays a psychotic hatred for the parents, not a critique of the judicial institution they employed.

As I was reading that comment I thought, “Please, God, tell me this isn’t a new ‘thing’ on the right, attacking and excoriating the Sandy Hook parents.” And God replied, “Dearest Dave, have you ever lost a bet that the right will make the worst move possible?”

“The verdicts were not only just, but typical for such a case.”

So I went to Twitter (aka Musk’s glory hole for rightists who suck) and yeah, it’s a thing now. Hundreds of comments from rightists big and small slamming the parents.

Fuck the Sandy Hook families involved in this political persecution of Alex Jones. 100% chance they’re the type of mentally ill parents that would’ve manipulated their kids into transhood & mutilated their genitals. All for commie social points and attention.

They are money hungry and greedy.

Sandy Hook parents are a bunch of lames trying to go after Alex for his money. I hope they burn in hell for their greedy evil schemes trying to get rich off their dead children.

Sandy Hook parents are scum humans. If you really cared about your children, you wouldn’t let greed demand $2B from a man voicing his opinion.

Saddest part is #SandyHook parents going to hell for their greed and will never again their children who are in Heaven.

The Sandy Hook parents are assholes. It was political and what grieving parent in their right mind acts that way?

The Sandy Hook parents that are involved with this witch hunt are all trashy people. Exploitation of their child’s death for more financial payout.

Just Twitter-search Sandy Hook parents (add “greed” to narrow it down more). You’ll see hundreds of comments from “MAGAs” and “America Firsters.”

But here’s something odd…not only don’t any of the big-name rightists who attack the parents go after the jury (you know, the people who awarded the money), they’ve all—yes, every one of them—cheered defamation cases in other contexts.

Collin Rugg, Darren Beattie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Joe Rogan, “Catturd,” Scott Baio, Jim Hoft/“Gateway Pundit,” Poso and Cerno, they all rail against the Jones verdicts. Yet every fucking one of them cheered the Nick Sandmann defamation victory, Musk’s declaration to sue the ADL for defamation, Trump and Truth Social’s various attempts to sue for defamation, Kyle Rittenhouse’s stated desire to sue his foes for defamation, and Sarah Palin’s defamation case against the NYT. Every damned one of the high-profile rightists who’ve slammed the Jones verdicts has at least one, more often several, tweets encouraging Sandmann, Rittenhouse, Trump, Musk, and Palin to “sue them for everything they’re worth! Break ’em! Bankrupt ’em!”

Where’d the concern for “free speech” disappear to?

What a toxic trash heap of worthless liars. There’s no “principle” there. Just be honest—you big babies like Alex Jones, some of you think he might be “onto something” about Sandy Hook (“hey, he’s just asking QWESTCHINS!”—which he wasn’t; he stated as fact that the shooting was a hoax), and like children you’re upset that your hero got slapped. So you respond as babies do, by spitting and shitting.

Let’s reframe the Jones/Sandy Hook case by adding some color. Let’s say the most wealthy, powerful black leftists in the media—Oprah, Van Jones, Don Lemon, Joy Reid, Al Sharpton, Ibram Kendi, and Nikole Hannah-Jones—declared the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre a hoax. Let’s say they claimed the cops faked the black driver (it was a white cop in a mask!), and let’s say they declared that the beautiful little children murdered and maimed that day never existed, or that they did exist but they’re actors, as are their parents. Let’s say the black journalists whipped up hatred against the parents, who had to hear again and again that their children were either complete inventions or fed agents—let’s say the daily bombardment led one Waukesha parent to kill himself—and let’s say that blacks from all over the country traveled to Waukesha in the name of those black media figures to harass and stalk the parents and send death threats to them, to the extent that the parents and their surviving children became afraid to leave their homes, while meanwhile those wealthy black media figures raked in millions hawking books about how the Waukesha kids were fake or actors and the kids and parents are racists who participated in a hoax to frame blacks so that their rights can be taken away.

In that alternate scenario, you know you’d say, “Sue the bastards! Sue ’em to bankruptcy!” And if you’re not willing to admit that, you’re a piece-of-shit liar. And how would you respond if some Daquan told the grieving parents that “words spoken by TV talking heads are meaningless compared to the murder of your child. I call BS on you being ‘tortured’—words are NOT torture. You CANNOT turn off torture like you can so easily turn off Joy Reid.”

“Principle,” my ass. You’re just butt-hurt than one of your own got tagged by a jury for his actions. Your response would be 100 percent opposite if the circumstances were altered as described above. You cheered Nick Sandmann, and MTG is on record offering to help Kyle Rittenhouse sue journos and politicos “into bankruptcy” over mere words.

I’ve no patience for your double standards.

And the right’s got no need for it. See, this shit is how “soft on crime” starts. This is the germination of the—as you might say—“mind virus.”

In March 1994, California enacted its “three strikes” law. That July, a two-strike felon (drug possession, auto theft, robbery) named Jerry Dewayne Williams—yes, a black gentleman—traveled from Compton to Redondo Beach for a day in the sun. At the same time, a white woman strolling down the boardwalk with her four kids, ages 7 to 15, bought them a pizza to share. As the children sat on the boardwalk eating, and mom was shopping across the way, Dewayne strolled over. “A white boy and his pizza are soon parted,” he thought to his’self. The 6’4″ Dewayne approached the kids and demanded a slice. They said no so he took one and walked away laughing at his precocious japery.

The kids ran to Mom, and back then there were cops patrolling the boardwalk, so Mom approached one and Dewayne was nabbed, tomato sauce still dripping from his lips.

Technically, it was just one slice of pizza. But there were factors—Dewayne’s history of theft, the victims being kids, etc.—that bumped it up to a felony. And that was a third strike. Mandatory 25-to-life.

You feeling bad for the guy, you weepy Jones-loving softies? Well, blacks and leftists certainly felt bad for him. “It was only a slice of pizza!” they wailed. “Dewayne’s got no history of violence, only property crime! Why, I bet if those kids were having a party and a friend of theirs nabbed a slice of pizza that he didn’t pay for, they’d all laugh!”

Maybe. But one of the things that upped the charges against Domino Dewayne was the “terror” factor. The court took into account that those children felt terror as the massive monster intimidated them. I know you Jonesians never read boring technical tomes, but if you did read books about law, you’d find that courts recognize terror, not only in criminal cases like Dewayne’s but in civil suits, like the 2000 crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261. The compensation to victims’ families increased because of the prolonged “fright and terror” the passengers suffered.

The dead from Flight 261 were as dead as the dead from any other crash, but the court awarded higher damages for terror. Nobody claimed Boeing or Alaska intended the crash—they certainly didn’t—but the crash was the result of their negligent actions.

Jones’ actions led to those families being terrorized. The parents, the little brothers and sisters of the victims, lived in fear for their lives, as the families were bombarded by “citizen journalists” who’d stalk them, stake out their houses, and leave threatening messages via email and phone. And yeah, one bereaved father did commit suicide.

The verdicts were not only just, but typical for such a case.

All you’re proving is that patriotical MAGA whites can also whine that “it was just a pizza slice! Ease up! He’s one of us, so we’ll excuse his wrongdoing.”

Dewayne was eventually rescued by his fans, just as your money will rescue Jones.

The disease of “soft on crime”—and I’m including civil torts—exists inside you. It need only be triggered for you to excuse defamation, harassment, invasion of privacy, and other matters in which “Hey, nobody got hurt.”

Question: When you saw those “climate change” terrorists spray-paint Stonehenge the other day, did you think, “Aw, let ’em go. You can’t hurt a rock! Wash it off and give those opinion-expressers a pass!”

I doubt it. You likely wanted them imprisoned (as they should be).

Even though no human was physically harmed, nothing was stolen, and rocks don’t have feelings.

“Soft on crime” always starts with unwarranted fawning (“He’s an honor student!”/“He’s just asking qwestchins!”), tribalism (“Don’t dare go after one of us!”), and hostility to victims (“Fuck their ‘trauma’! They weren’t really hurt. Walk it off!”).

I offer no excuses for Daquans, and none for Jones.

See, that’s called principle, something Jones fanboys can’t tell from their asscrack.

Which is exactly where they should shove their hatred of Sandy Hook parents.

And please, “patriots”: Shove it hard.


Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!