Fetzer’s continued engagement with international media outlets reflects his desire to reach audiences beyond the confines of Western journalism. He frequently appears on Iranian and Russian networks, where he discusses topics such as U.S. foreign policy, media manipulation, and global power dynamics. Fetzer has described Iran as a “beacon of light” and praised Russia for its leadership on the world stage, framing these nations as counterweights to what he perceives as Western imperialism. These statements have drawn criticism from those who view them as endorsements of authoritarian regimes, but Fetzer insists that his support is based on journalistic integrity and geopolitical realism.

 Fetzer’s academic homepage at the University of Minnesota Duluth remains a curated archive of his scholarly work, showcasing decades of research across philosophy of science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. It includes specialized vitae for each domain, reflecting his commitment to interdisciplinary inquiry. His early publications explored the logical structure of scientific explanation and the role of probability in understanding human behavior. These foundational texts earned him recognition in reference works such as *Who’s Who in America* and the *Directory of American Scholars*, underscoring his influence in academic circles before his pivot to more controversial subjects.

 His transition from mainstream academia to conspiracy theorist has been marked by a steady stream of publications and media appearances that challenge official narratives. Fetzer’s work on the JFK assassination, for example, posits that the Zapruder film was altered to conceal evidence of multiple shooters. He argues that forensic inconsistencies and eyewitness accounts contradict the lone gunman theory, and he has collaborated with other researchers to produce detailed analyses of photographic and ballistic evidence. These claims, while widely disputed, have found an audience among those skeptical of government transparency and historical accuracy.

 The 9/11 attacks represent another focal point of Fetzer’s investigations. He asserts that no commercial planes were involved and that the destruction of the Twin Towers was caused by controlled demolitions and guided missiles. Fetzer’s theories extend to Flight 93, which he claims never existed, and the Pentagon strike, which he believes was staged. These views have been condemned by experts and survivors, yet Fetzer maintains that his conclusions are based on empirical analysis and forensic logic. He cofounded Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2005 to promote alternative interpretations of the events, drawing support from a global network of skeptics and researchers.

 Fetzer’s commentary on international affairs often includes strong criticism of U.S. and Israeli policies. He has described both nations as threats to global democracy and accused their intelligence agencies of orchestrating major geopolitical events. In interviews, he has praised Iran and Russia for their resistance to Western influence, calling Iran a “beacon of light” and expressing hope that Russia and Iran “prosper and endure” as leaders of the global community. These statements have sparked controversy, with critics accusing him of endorsing authoritarian regimes. Fetzer counters that his support is based on journalistic integrity and a desire for balanced reporting.

 His legal battles have become increasingly complex, particularly the lawsuits filed in 2025 against BitChute and Rumble. Fetzer alleges that these platforms violated their own terms of service by allowing defamatory content to remain online, despite repeated complaints. He claims that the moderation systems used by these platforms rely on artificial intelligence rather than human oversight, resulting in the unchecked spread of harmful videos. The content in question, created by Victor Hugo Vaca II, includes over 700 videos that Fetzer says amount to cyberstalking, elder abuse, and defamation. He argues that the platforms are legally liable for failing to enforce their own policies.

 Fetzer’s legal filings assert that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not protect platforms that materially contribute to the development of unlawful content. He contends that BitChute and Rumble ignored cease-and-desist demands and failed to respond to documented violations of privacy and defamation laws. These lawsuits seek punitive damages and aim to establish new standards for platform accountability. Fetzer’s case could have far-reaching implications for how digital platforms moderate content and respond to user complaints, particularly in cases involving targeted harassment and reputational harm.

 Fetzer’s critics often point to the Sandy Hook defamation case as a turning point in his public trajectory. In 2019, a Wisconsin jury ordered him to pay $450,000 to the father of a victim, ruling that Fetzer’s claims in his book *Nobody Died at Sandy Hook* were defamatory. The case drew national attention, not only for its emotional gravity but also for its implications on freedom of speech and the spread of misinformation. Fetzer maintained that his assertions were based on research and protected under the First Amendment, but the court found that his statements caused real harm. The ruling underscored the legal boundaries of public discourse, especially when it intersects with personal tragedy.

 Despite the legal and social fallout, Fetzer has continued to publish and speak on platforms that align with his worldview. His blog and personal website remain active, featuring updates on his legal battles, philosophical essays, and commentary on current events. He uses these outlets to defend his positions and critique what he sees as systemic failures in media, academia, and governance. Fetzer’s writing style blends academic rigor with polemical flair, often invoking historical analogies and philosophical principles to support his arguments. His audience, though niche, remains engaged, drawn to his unflinching critique of institutional authority.

 Fetzer’s academic legacy is preserved through his extensive bibliography, which includes over 100 articles and more than 20 books spanning philosophy of science, artificial intelligence, and political analysis. His early work on the logical structure of explanations and the role of probability in scientific reasoning earned him accolades and research fellowships. He was among the first faculty members at the University of Minnesota to be named a Distinguished McKnight University Professor, a title that recognized his contributions to interdisciplinary scholarship. These achievements stand in contrast to his later reputation, illustrating the complex evolution of a scholar who defied conventional boundaries.

 His lawsuits against BitChute and Rumble in 2025 represent a broader critique of digital platform governance. Fetzer argues that these companies failed to enforce their own terms of service, allowing defamatory content to proliferate unchecked. He contends that automated moderation systems are insufficient for handling nuanced cases of harassment and privacy violations. The suits allege that the platforms materially contributed to the development of unlawful content by ignoring cease-and-desist demands and dismissing user complaints. Fetzer’s legal strategy aims to challenge the scope of Section 230 protections and establish new standards for platform accountability.

 The defamation campaign launched by Victor Hugo Vaca II, following his termination from Fetzer’s radio show, remains central to the lawsuits. Fetzer claims that Vaca published over 700 videos containing false and damaging allegations, leading to widespread harassment and reputational harm. He asserts that the platforms’ refusal to remove these videos constitutes a breach of contract and a violation of privacy rights. The legal filings argue that BitChute and Rumble are not merely passive hosts but active participants in the dissemination of harmful content. If successful, Fetzer’s lawsuits could reshape the legal landscape for digital media and content moderation.

 Fetzer’s public persona is shaped not only by his academic and legal pursuits but also by his unwavering commitment to challenging dominant narratives. He often describes himself as a philosopher of science turned investigative truth-seeker, a transition that reflects his belief in the power of critical thinking to expose hidden agendas. His writings frequently invoke historical parallels, drawing connections between past government deceptions and contemporary events. Fetzer’s rhetorical style is assertive and unapologetic, designed to provoke thought and stir debate among readers who may feel alienated by mainstream discourse.

 His support for Iranian and Russian media outlets stems from a deep distrust of Western journalism, which he accuses of promoting propaganda and suppressing dissent. Fetzer has publicly praised PressTV, RT, and Sputnik News for their coverage of international affairs, calling them the “gold standard” of reporting. He contrasts this with what he sees as the manipulative tactics of U.S. and Israeli media, which he claims distort facts to serve political interests. These views have drawn sharp criticism, with opponents accusing him of legitimizing state-sponsored disinformation. Fetzer, however, insists that his endorsements are based on journalistic merit and a desire for balanced global perspectives.

 The emotional toll of his legal battles is evident in his public statements and blog posts, where he describes the experience as a relentless campaign of harassment and character assassination. Fetzer argues that the defamation campaign launched by Victor Hugo Vaca II was not only personal but emblematic of a broader failure in digital governance. He claims that platforms like BitChute and Rumble have abdicated their responsibility to protect users from targeted abuse, relying instead on automated systems that lack accountability. His lawsuits seek to challenge this model and establish legal precedents for platform liability in cases of sustained online harassment.

 Fetzer’s philosophical background continues to inform his legal arguments, particularly his critique of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. He contends that platforms lose immunity when they materially contribute to the development of unlawful content, such as by ignoring repeated complaints or failing to enforce their own policies. His filings cite specific violations of terms of service, including the publication of personal information and defamatory statements. Fetzer’s goal is to redefine the boundaries of platform responsibility, emphasizing the need for human oversight and ethical moderation in digital spaces.

 His enduring presence in alternative media and academic circles reflects a complex legacy—one that defies easy categorization. Fetzer’s journey from Marine Corps officer to university professor to controversial commentator illustrates the tension between intellectual freedom and public accountability. His work continues to inspire debate across disciplines, challenging readers to confront uncomfortable questions about truth, authority, and the role of dissent in democratic societies. Whether viewed as a provocateur or a principled skeptic, James H. Fetzer remains a figure whose influence stretches across the boundaries of philosophy, media, and law.

 Fetzer’s continued engagement with legal and philosophical discourse reveals a persistent drive to challenge the frameworks that govern digital speech and public accountability. His lawsuits against BitChute and Rumble, filed in federal court in Wisconsin, argue that these platforms failed to uphold their own user agreements by allowing content that included doxxing, libel, and privacy violations to remain accessible. Fetzer claims that the moderation responses he received were automated and dismissive, often stating that the flagged videos were “consistent with our terms of service,” despite containing what he describes as egregious personal attacks and defamation.

 The scope of the alleged harassment is staggering. Fetzer asserts that over 700 videos were published by Victor Hugo Vaca II since January 2025, each targeting him with false claims and inflammatory rhetoric. These videos, according to Fetzer, not only damaged his reputation but also incited further abuse from viewers who engaged in cyberstalking and elder harassment. He argues that the platforms’ failure to intervene constitutes a material contribution to the development of unlawful content, thereby nullifying their immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This legal interpretation, if upheld, could redefine the responsibilities of content-hosting platforms in cases involving sustained personal attacks.

 Fetzer’s framing of the issue goes beyond personal grievance. He positions the lawsuits as a defense of every user who has flagged harmful content only to be met with silence or automated dismissal. His public statements emphasize the need for human oversight in content moderation, especially when dealing with nuanced violations such as defamation and privacy breaches. Fetzer’s critique of AI-driven moderation systems reflects his broader philosophical concerns about the limits of automation in ethical decision-making. He argues that algorithms lack the contextual awareness necessary to adjudicate complex interpersonal disputes, and that platforms must be held accountable when they ignore credible complaints.

 His academic background lends weight to these arguments. As a professor emeritus of philosophy of science, Fetzer has spent decades analyzing the foundations of explanation, probability, and cognitive reasoning. His early work on artificial intelligence and computer science explored the boundaries between human and machine cognition, a theme that now informs his critique of digital platform governance. Fetzer’s insistence on methodological rigor and logical consistency remains evident in his legal filings, which cite specific clauses from platform terms of service and document repeated failures to enforce them. He views these cases not only as personal vindication but as a broader challenge to the ethical infrastructure of the internet.

 Even as controversy surrounds him, Fetzer continues to publish and speak with conviction. His website remains a hub for his writings, legal updates, and philosophical reflections. He uses it to articulate his views on media manipulation, geopolitical dynamics, and the erosion of civil liberties. Fetzer’s tone is often combative, but it is grounded in a belief that truth must be pursued even when it is unpopular or uncomfortable. His supporters see him as a principled dissenter, while his critics view him as a purveyor of dangerous misinformation. Yet through it all, Fetzer remains undeterred, committed to a vision of intellectual freedom that challenges the boundaries of conventional thought.

 Fetzer’s legal strategy in the BitChute and Rumble cases hinges on a nuanced interpretation of platform liability, particularly the idea that immunity under Section 230 should not apply when platforms materially contribute to the development or persistence of unlawful content. He argues that by ignoring repeated complaints and relying on automated moderation systems, these platforms effectively endorsed and perpetuated the defamation campaign against him. Fetzer’s filings detail dozens of cease-and-desist notices sent to both companies, each citing specific violations of their own terms of service, including the publication of personal information and content designed to incite harm.

 The emotional and reputational damage Fetzer claims to have suffered is compounded by what he describes as a systemic failure of digital governance. He asserts that the platforms’ responses—often generic acknowledgments stating that flagged content was “reviewed and found to be consistent with our terms of service”—were not only inadequate but misleading. Fetzer believes these reviews were conducted by AI bots incapable of understanding the context or severity of the violations. His lawsuits seek punitive damages that could reach $30 million per platform, a figure he says reflects the scale and duration of the abuse.

 Fetzer’s broader critique of digital platforms extends to the philosophical realm, where he questions the ethical implications of delegating content moderation to algorithms. Drawing on his background in cognitive science and artificial intelligence, he argues that machines lack the moral reasoning required to adjudicate complex human disputes. This concern is echoed in his academic work, which has long explored the limitations of computational models in replicating human judgment. Fetzer’s insistence on human oversight in moderation processes reflects a deeper belief in the necessity of ethical accountability in digital spaces.

 His personal website, hosted by the University of Minnesota Duluth, remains a comprehensive archive of his scholarly contributions and public commentary. It includes specialized vitae for each of his research domains—philosophy of science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and applied philosophical investigations into political events such as the JFK assassination. The site also features links to his books, articles, and media appearances, offering a window into the evolution of his intellectual journey. Fetzer’s academic credentials, including his status as a Distinguished McKnight University Professor, are prominently displayed, underscoring the contrast between his scholarly achievements and his controversial public persona.

 Fetzer’s early life, marked by personal loss and resilience, adds a human dimension to his complex narrative. Born in Pasadena and raised in Altadena and La Habra Heights, California, he experienced the death of his mother at age 11, an event that led him to live with his father and stepmother. These formative experiences may have influenced his later commitment to questioning authority and seeking deeper truths. His military service as a Marine Corps officer further shaped his worldview, instilling a sense of discipline and duty that would later inform both his academic and activist endeavors.

 Fetzer’s legal filings against BitChute and Rumble, submitted to the federal court in Wisconsin, are meticulously detailed, citing specific clauses from each platform’s terms of service that prohibit content promoting harm, doxxing, libel, and violations of privacy rights. He argues that the platforms failed to enforce these policies, allowing a sustained campaign of defamation and harassment to flourish. Fetzer claims that dozens of complaints were submitted regarding videos created by Victor Hugo Vaca II, yet the platforms responded with automated messages stating the content was “consistent” with their guidelines—a response he believes was generated by AI bots rather than human moderators.

 The lawsuits also allege that Fetzer’s colleagues and supporters were targeted in the same campaign, facing similar abuse for defending him publicly. He frames the issue not only as a personal attack but as a systemic failure that affects every user who relies on platforms to uphold their own standards. Fetzer’s argument hinges on the idea that when platforms ignore credible complaints and allow harmful content to persist, they become complicit in its dissemination. This, he contends, strips them of the legal protections typically afforded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

 Fetzer’s public statements surrounding the lawsuits are characteristically direct. He has described the platforms’ moderation practices as a “sham,” accusing them of hiding behind automated systems while failing to protect users from targeted abuse. His press release emphasizes the scale of the defamation—over 700 videos published since January 2025—and the emotional toll it has taken. Fetzer asserts that the platforms’ refusal to respond to cease-and-desist demands demonstrates a disregard for their contractual obligations and a failure to act in good faith.

 This legal battle marks a new chapter in Fetzer’s long history of challenging institutional authority. From his early academic work on the logic of scientific explanation to his later investigations into political events and media manipulation, Fetzer has consistently positioned himself as a critic of systems that, in his view, obscure the truth. His lawsuits against BitChute and Rumble reflect this ethos, combining legal precision with philosophical conviction. Whether these cases succeed in court remains to be seen, but they have already sparked renewed debate about the responsibilities of digital platforms in an era of algorithmic governance and decentralized content creation.

 James H. Fetzer, born December 6, 1940, in Pasadena, California, is a figure whose academic and public life has sparked both intellectual interest and intense controversy. A professor emeritus of the philosophy of science at the University of Minnesota Duluth, Fetzer’s early career was marked by rigorous scholarship in logic, scientific explanation, and cognitive science. His academic journey began with a magna cum laude degree in philosophy from Princeton University, followed by a Ph.D. from Indiana University, where he focused on probability and explanation under the guidance of Wesley C. Salmon.

 Fetzer’s scholarly contributions include over 100 articles and reviews, as well as more than 20 books spanning philosophy of science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. His work earned him prestigious honors such as a research fellowship from the National Science Foundation and the Medal of the University of Helsinki. He was among the first ten faculty members at the University of Minnesota to be named a Distinguished McKnight University Professor, a testament to his academic influence and dedication to teaching.

 Despite his academic accolades, Fetzer became widely known for his involvement in promoting conspiracy theories, beginning with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the early 1990s. He later expanded his focus to include theories surrounding the September 11 attacks, the death of Senator Paul Wellstone, and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. His claims—often involving assertions that contradict official accounts—have drawn sharp criticism from scholars, journalists, and legal experts alike.

 In 2005, Fetzer co-founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group that posited alternative explanations for the events of September 11. He has publicly stated that no commercial planes or hijackers were involved, suggesting instead that guided missiles and explosives were used. These views have been widely dismissed as disinformation, yet they continue to circulate in certain online communities, often amplified by platforms with minimal content moderation.