What Happened to the First Amendment, Sandy Hook? – Reprinted Article
2024/06/14
Wall Street Journal Photo – Alex Jones
Reprinted Article AbleChild legislation in the aftermath of Sandy Hook – Obtaining the Mental Health Records of Adam Lanza
Forward Note:
A simple search relating to any news coverage of Sandy Hook would show that the Sandy Hook families who lost their children didn’t sue Professor James Tracy. In addition, it is noteworthy to understand that Professor James Tracy’s legal attempts to have the Supreme Court review his case under the first amendment were rejected, Why? Professor Tracy wasn’t fired because of what he said, but the fact he didn’t disclose his outside activities that apparently violated his contract. – food for thought.
It is true Alex Jones questioned the official narrative the day Sandy Hook mass shooting was being covered live by the National News with the involvement from the FBI, and State Police.
Jones certainly wasn’t incorrect about the FBI agent showing up to a crime scene ill prepared and without the proper equipment, that shocking fact came directly from the FBI agent himself on the stand at the Alex Jones trial. The same FBI agent who is currently profiting off the Sandy Hook crime scene by suing Alex Jones. This agent failed to produce the FBI waiver that is required by FBI ethics and protocols to obtain approval to profit off such crime scenes. This official FBI waiver was clearly missing at the Connecticut trial of Alex Jones. An FBI agent suing relating to a crime scene for profit? This just might be a first.
Original Article:
What Happened to the First Amendment, Sandy Hook?
Reference articled by Jacqueline Smith
https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Jacqueline-Smith-Sandy-Hook-hoaxer-deserved-to-6762291.php
In response to Jacqueline Smith and her opinion of Professor James Tracy, two words immediately spring to mind: Toughen up. Strong reaction? Yes. But trampling on the First Amendment is serious and requires a strong response.
Smith claims that Professor Tracy doesn’t have a First Amendment right to “spew his nonsense.” There is no need to go any further in her rambling, disjointed piece. Smith simply does not understand that it is precisely this kind of “nonsense” that the Founding Fathers intended to protect.