@vivify saidLOL, a couple days after agreeing with you on the topic of Israel, allow me to state my reservations on this...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/us/politics/alex-jones-trial-sandy-hook.html
Alex Jones is court facing a $150 million dollar defamation suit from the families of the Sandy Hook victims after he claimed the shooting was a hoax, resulting in years of harassment and deaths threats to the families of the victims.
Alex Jones' lawyer accidently sent text messages to the la ...[text shortened]... ent and U.S. government officials interested in seeing these materials,” Mr. Bankston, said.[/quote]
Free speech should be absolute. You're allowed to believe in insane conspiracy theories and to advocate them. Of course, harassment is real, and it is against the law... But I do not think anyone is actually saying that Alex Jones was personally harassing these people.
I do not see how he can be guilty of this unless in very certain terms he was actively advocating that people harass these private individuals at their homes and on their private lines (it would be something different if he had simply told them to make complaints to the official lines of communication of politicians or other public figures, IMO).
I also am uncomfortable with these gigantic sums -- $150 mill? For a private individual that is some anti-establishment professional provocateur? Just bizarre.
... and J6? Geez, yeah, of course some people were violent on the police line. Someone stole Pelosi's podium. Trespassing charges are relevant... But one woudl expect these people to be pursued with the same zeal and gusto you got for the BLM rioters in the summer of 2020, and that it would not create some televised kangaroo court for the entire country.
Law that is strictly applied when it benefits the state, and is conveniently ignored or barely brought up when it goes against the wishes of the state, undermines the whole legal system.
@philokalia saidOne famous SCOTUS justice, Hugo Black, believed any libel laws violated the First Amendment but his position has attracted little support from other justices.
LOL, a couple days after agreeing with you on the topic of Israel, allow me to state my reservations on this...
Free speech should be absolute. You're allowed to believe in insane conspiracy theories and to advocate them. Of course, harassment is real, and it is against the law... But I do not think anyone is actually saying that Alex Jones was personally harass ...[text shortened]... r barely brought up when it goes against the wishes of the state, undermines the whole legal system.
I have not closely followed the Jones case, but from what I have read he refused to turn over routinely requested materials to the plaintiffs and the judge declared a default judgment against him. The trial thus was just about damages and it's not hard to see why a jury might reach a $50 million judgment against him for publicly and repeatedly claiming the parents of children massacred were frauds.
It will be interesting what the appellate courts do with the case.
@no1marauder saidThat is very interesting re: Hugo Black.
One famous SCOTUS justice, Hugo Black, believed any libel laws violated the First Amendment but his position has attracted little support from other justices.
I have not closely followed the Jones case, but from what I have read he refused to turn over routinely requested materials to the plaintiffs and the judge declared a default judgment against him. The trial thus ...[text shortened]... ildren massacred were frauds.
It will be interesting what the appellate courts do with the case.
I have had this thought enter my mind before... but I also understand how if we have a reason to trust somebody is knowledgeable of something, and they choose to print something that they know is false and is damaging, particularly if they do so as an official media outlet or journalist, there is some massive breach of trust here. I think there should be some amount of rules.
I think it would make sense for there to be two categories of commentary...
- General free speech
- Reporting
We could make it so there are certain literal benefits to being a licensed reporter/ reporting medium... You would be an accredited source, for instance, and could also register as a non-profit in some cases, and would have priority for access to public airwaves... And the tradeoff would be that you would be subject to 'Libel,' and perhaps we could also say that there were more standards for the use of public airwaves...
This could make it so that Alex Jones could have his absolute free speech and conspiracy-cum-entertainment driven shows.
It could also be kind of useful to have this distinction to just remind people that they are sometimes choosing to get all their news from sources that are dubious.
@philokalia saidKeep in mind this was not a criminal trial. Alex Jones is not going to jail for his speech. He is being held liable for slandering victims of a tragedy, by spreading *demonstrably* false claims.
LOL, a couple days after agreeing with you on the topic of Israel, allow me to state my reservations on this...
Free speech should be absolute. You're allowed to believe in insane conspiracy theories and to advocate them. Of course, harassment is real, and it is against the law... But I do not think anyone is actually saying that Alex Jones was personally harass ...[text shortened]... r barely brought up when it goes against the wishes of the state, undermines the whole legal system.
The dead bodies of children slaughtered by bullets prove Jones was spreading demonstrably false claims, resulting in the the harassment of the victims' families. He was found liable in a civic (not criminal) trial for damages.
Regarding the amount, $50 million was awarded in this case but Jones still has two other defamation cases waiting which will add up to $150 million if the court rules in their favor.
@vivify said$45 million in punitive damages is a very high award; I wouldn't be shocked if an appellate court substantially reduced that amount.
Keep in mind this was not a criminal trial. Alex Jones is not going to jail for his speech. He is being held liable for slandering victims of a tragedy, by spreading *demonstrably* false claims.
The dead bodies of children slaughtered by bullets prove Jones was spreading demonstrably false claims, resulting in the the harassment of the victims' families. He was found l ...[text shortened]... other defamation cases waiting which will add up to $150 million if the court rules in their favor.
@philokalia said"But I do not think anyone is actually saying that Alex Jones was personally harassing these people."
LOL, a couple days after agreeing with you on the topic of Israel, allow me to state my reservations on this...
Free speech should be absolute. You're allowed to believe in insane conspiracy theories and to advocate them. Of course, harassment is real, and it is against the law... But I do not think anyone is actually saying that Alex Jones was personally harass ...[text shortened]... r barely brought up when it goes against the wishes of the state, undermines the whole legal system.
He was sued by the parents of Sandy Hook victims, because of his harassment of these people, and the others who believed his lies.
You have a partisan opinion of these things, based on what other media personalities (such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, and yes, Alex Jones) made up lies about. People should have to pay for the lies they spew which make other partisans (who are obviously overwhelmingly stupid and gullible) lash out at them. This was the entire point of the lawsuit, to make others who lie for their own benefit take a second look at what they are doing to the people they lie about.
@no1marauder saidThey just have to shop around for a Trump judge. Can't swing a dead cat without hitting one any more.
$45 million in punitive damages is a very high award; I wouldn't be shocked if an appellate court substantially reduced that amount.
@philokalia saidWhen "entertainment" incites people to riot (Jan.6), or attack those who are lied about (Jones), there has to be a limit on lies.
That is very interesting re: Hugo Black.
I have had this thought enter my mind before... but I also understand how if we have a reason to trust somebody is knowledgeable of something, and they choose to print something that they know is false and is damaging, particularly if they do so as an official media outlet or journalist, there is some massive breach of trust her ...[text shortened]... remind people that they are sometimes choosing to get all their news from sources that are dubious.
Maybe new laws on "incitement driven by lies", you know, because people are too stupid and believe too many con men. Americans, especially, can't tell lies from fact any more.
@vivify saidQuick correction: Jones does have two more defamation trials but the one in the OP was originally for $150 million. $45.2 million was awarded in addition to an initial $4.1mil.
Keep in mind this was not a criminal trial. Alex Jones is not going to jail for his speech. He is being held liable for slandering victims of a tragedy, by spreading *demonstrably* false claims.
The dead bodies of children slaughtered by bullets prove Jones was spreading demonstrably false claims, resulting in the the harassment of the victims' families. He was found l ...[text shortened]... other defamation cases waiting which will add up to $150 million if the court rules in their favor.
3 edits
@no1marauder saidPart of the suit seems to allege Jones profited from spreading the lies; if the judge agreed, that could explain the high amount, in addition to the family suffering from harassment.
$45 million in punitive damages is a very high award; I wouldn't be shocked if an appellate court substantially reduced that amount.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/31/us/politics/sandy-hook-alex-jones.html
@vivify saidAppellate courts in recent years have been skeptical of punitive damages far above compensatory ones. Maybe this one will survive, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were cut significantly.
Part of the suit seems to allege Jones profited from spreading the lies, which if the judge agreed, could explain the high amount, in addition to the family suffering from harassment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/31/us/politics/sandy-hook-alex-jones.html
@vivify saidThis doesn't make any sense to me. I understand that sometimes there is a distinction between criminal law and .I guess you would call it 'civil law'... But how is there wrongdoing via saying moronic things that are not illegal?
Keep in mind this was not a criminal trial. Alex Jones is not going to jail for his speech. He is being held liable for slandering victims of a tragedy, by spreading *demonstrably* false claims.
The dead bodies of children slaughtered by bullets prove Jones was spreading demonstrably false claims, resulting in the the harassment of the victims' families. He was found l ...[text shortened]... other defamation cases waiting which will add up to $150 million if the court rules in their favor.
How can someone be held criminally responsible for the sole crime of being a moron?
Illegal to harass people's families, of course - nobody has a right to do that...
But it is not criminal to believe in absurd things... and if you happen to have a large platform, you do not take on the responsibility for people who commit acts of harassment motivated by your idiocy unless, of course, you are part of the planning or execution of that.
The people who should be on trial are the people who actually harassed the families. But my guess is that there's no actual money that'll ever be forthcoming from that, nor do people get satisfaction putting literal schizophrenics and crazies behind bars. So, they go after a guy who has money that they can connect to it.
Strange scenario.