If Alex Jones & others are wrong why aren't they being sued for slander?

Question

If the Natoinal Enquirer has slanderous articles about a celebrity the celebrity sues for slander!!!

Wouldn't any of the people being discussed in prison planet or info wars sue for slander if they weren't guilty of these accusations!!

I mean come on implicating American government officials in murder and treason!!!!!!!

That's more of a slander if untrue than anything some celebrity has done!

Just something to think about!

Scarlett--Freedom of speech doesn't protect people from making slanderous accusations! Try again!

Libel--slander either one shows my point!

Answer 1

This is an excellent question. It probably won't get through to every Bushtard out there, but if it only reaches a handful, that is better than yesterday!!!!

Answer 2

Because it's their first amendment right. Celebrities are private citizens, people have a guaranteed right to criticize the government. We also have a right to not listen to them. Besides, I doubt very many people believe this stuff and the government doesn't want to waste their time on this nonsense. Oh and FYI slander is only slander if the offended party takes action against it, if the Federal government doesn't care then it's not slander.

Answer 3

Because it takes time and money to go after them when everyone pretty much knows they make things up. Carol Burnett sued the National Enquirer a few years back because they claimed she was drunk in public. She did it because it was untrue and she came from an alcoholic family and didn't want to be associated with that. It takes a lot to have to go to court and do that sort of thing, but she did it and won. Hasn't stopped them, though. And, if you are suing a paper for writing untrue, malicious articles, then it's libel, not slander. Slander is when someone spreads a nasty, injurious rumor.

Answer 4

From information gradually emerging from Pakistan, Pakistani intelligence was involved in some level in the 9/11 attacks. Either a lower level operative utilized intelligence resources to support Al Qaeda, or the conspiracy flows to the top. And it would appear, the Bush Administration knew more than it's telling about Atta and the culpability of Pakistan.



Pakistan's top spy, Mahmood Ahmad, visited Washington for a week [in 2001], taking meetings with top State Department people like Tenet and Mark Grossman, under secretary of state for political affairs. The Pakistani press reported, "ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood's weeklong presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council." Did they know that Ahmad had wired over $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, through U.K. national Saeed Sheikh in the summer of 2001? (Facts all confirmed, quietly, by the FBI investigation in Pakistan, and, partially, in the Wall Street Journal.)

That means that our top people at the State Department enjoyed only a few degrees of separation from 9/11's lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta. Here's the real kicker: As this story first broke in the Times of India, in October 2001, instead of retaliating, the United States gave Pakistan $3 billion in U.S. aid. Ahmad was allowed to quietly resign.

Bob Graham, D-Fla., who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, would later tell PBS's Gwen Ifill: "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true."

Answer 5

Since the mainstream reads the stuff that is published in NE and other sensationalist rags it has a large audience, thus people are more likely to sue because the mainstream believes it. But because Jones and his cohorts have a very small audience, what they say has yet to be believed by the mainstream, thus there is no reason to sue.

Answer 6

The defense to a slander charge is truth. And the truth is like kryptonite to most of our congress memebers

Answer 7

Are you serious? everyone slanders Bush. Why would he lower himself to the level of the slanderer's?

Answer 8

Wow....this is an excellent question!!! Very Very good. Maybe it's because all these people are actually guilty? Hello America wake up!

Answer 9

If they sue, they have to get on the stand and testify. They rather set up tin foil hat websites and let the delusional speak for them.

Answer 10

Freedom of speech.