Marjorie Greene, of course,
is going to defend Alex Jones facing this massive $1 billion fine.
But take a look of how she chooses to defend him.
She says, no matter what you think about Jones, all he did was speak words.
He was not the one who pulled the trigger, were his words wrong?
And did he apologize?
Yes, well, half, yes, to be clear, that's what freedom of speech is.
Freedom to speak words.
Political persecution must end.
So, there's a lot that's conflated and of course,
is gonna be her mind is swiss cheese with the holes being drilled on a daily basis
by a variety of different sorts of worms.
That's the best that she can do.
But we're gonna try to break it down and respond to it.
Did he pull the trigger?
No, he of course did not pull the trigger.
But to be clear, he doesn't think that anyone pulled the trigger.
Can we be clear about that?
He thinks it was made up.
He thinks these kids literally didn't exist.
So, you're gonna defend him at least be specific about what
exact speech you're defending, Marjorie Greene.
You don't wanna be though, your cowardly, you were want to be very vague
about it because you don't wanna implicate yourself.
Particularly, when you have repeatedly implied that mass shootings and
other forms of mass violence are false flags that they don't actually exist.
But does he have freedom of speech?
Yes, he does.
Does freedom of speech mean whatever Marjorie Greene wants it to.
No, it has specific meanings and specific limitations.
Defamation is one of those limitations,
particularly when the defamation can be very reliably,
predictably linked to harassment and threats against those people.
And when you repeatedly do it multiple times after being warned about the effect
of what you're doing.
And there in mind, she tries to apologize for all this saying he apologized,
which he technically briefly did.
But if you buy that apology,
you're probably a viewer of Alex Jones because he has repeatedly,
since then said, that he doesn't believe that the shooting was real.
What of the survivors of this?
Or I believe a family member's survivor, responded to Marjorie Greene saying.
Did you also miss him doubling down saying that the shooting looked synthetic as we
were in court for this trial?
She ignores that, of course, she ignores that.
She doesn't care that as, Ruben Gallego points out,
defamation is very much not protected speech.
And just to be clear,
one might expect her to understand that the defamation part of this.
When she has repeatedly threatened to sue people for things they said about her.
She tweeted right here, defamation of character is a serious issue.
Perhaps if democrats keep lying about republicans,
like representative Loudermilk and others.
They should be taken to court.
Well, why should they be taken to court?
They didn't pull a trigger, Marjorie Greene.
They only said words and that's freedom of speech.
No, of course, she understands.
She wants freedom of speech for her and for
people like Alex Jones to say literally anything they want for personal profit.
Even if it causes mass predictable suffering.
And then when they get criticized, they want to immediately run to the courts or
at least imply that they're going to.
Herschel Walker with the abortion allegations.
They will often say that they're gonna bring someone to court.
But they very much don't want the process of discovery in a courtroom to make them
look even worse.
So they don't often actually do it, Jackson, what do you think?
>> So, you really just nailed it on the head in terms of, for me, but not for the.
And, but just how hollow and
in your face it really is, whether it be defending Alex Jones.
Or people for anyone who is familiar with the Andrew Tate of the world
who get the platforms or it's just their fight is so hollow and so stupid.
My right to say distrustful things that literally lead to other people being
harmed and being hurt.
Which of course, is not something that's legally protected whatsoever.
When platforms like twitter, which are businesses that have audiences and
they have responsibilities.
When they decide to, maybe temporarily suspend somebody for
spreading false information that could impact people's health.
And things along those lines.
No, I have a right to do that.
I have a right to be stupid, basically.
And one of the things I've been saying across the networks for
the last few weeks is just how.
One of the strategies we really need to take, is to just not treat these people
like they're not serious because they're not serious.
Let's just roll over these people because, I mean,
how can you defend someone like Alex Jones, really, come on.
>> They're natural allies and again, just to put a button in this.
And then we're gonna have to see if we can roll over her on a couple of other topics.
If he had just said it once, it would be reprehensible, but
maybe people could move on or whatever.
That's not what he did.
He very repeatedly said about this shooting, about other shootings,
knowing about the harassment that was going on.
And more importantly, knowing about the money he was making by pushing these lies.
He didn't care about the incredible amount of suffering that he was doing.
And that's what makes it a thing where in theory you can start to suffer legal
ramifications.
[MUSIC]