@kevin-eleven saidHave you had children that have been murdered? Did the judge, either lawyer, or anyone on the jury have any children murdered?
How many of your children have been murdered?
You should be very careful if you don't understand what has been decided here.
Fortunately few of us have had children murdered, which means legal issues in such cases are going to almost always be judged and decided by people who have not had children murdered.
What is your claim for understanding better than I? How can you, someone who presumably has not experienced having one of their children murdered tell me I'm wrong?
@shavixmir saidSo I am writing to question whether or not $1 billion was the right punishment.
Yes. I believe that 1 billion is not the right punishment.
But if I was one of those parents, I’d tie the obnoxious fukk up and kick him up and down the street like the leaky puss-filled football he is.
Seemingly we agree on this point (at least to the point of questioning whether this is the correct legal remedy). I don't know why it has to be this hard to agree.
We are strangers to each other on an anonymous forum with little public visibility where we have no reason to suspect either of us have experienced having one of our children murdered.
Is it obligatory to express outrage at the latest iconic villain in order to also question the correctness of the legal outcome? If one does not express outrage to other strangers on this anonymous forum, is it considered fair to presume support for the villain? Why can't we just observe how horrible Alex Jones appears and give each other the benefit of the doubt as a starting point for any discussion? If I wanted to make a point other than about how bad Alex Jones is, how many paragraphs of text saying essentially "Alex Jones bad" would I need to write before I'd be able to write a single sentence asking whether or not we really ought to impose $1 billion civil penalties for hurtful words?
You may ask why would one bother to question a legal matter that has gone against such a horrible person. It comes down to having consistent legal standards because other horrible people have managed to not be so universally unlikeable, and in other cases people may be expressing very reasonable and defendable opinions that could still result in a crazy person among our 330 million citizens engage in threats or even violence.
1 edit
@techsouth saidPerson X is responsible for giving person Y cause to believe that person Z warranted or somehow deserved the punishment that person Y inflicted upon person Z
What exactly are you disagreeing with?
The way I worded the question, "disagreeing" means that person X would NOT be held responsible for actions of person Y. In this case, Alex Jones hurt some feelings, and as some have argued, he caused other people (e.g. persons Y) to do some bad things. If you disagree with my question, then you are saying that someone can be char ...[text shortened]... embark on the mental exercise of considering what this case might mean when applied to other cases?
It’s not really rocket science is it?
@kevcvs57 saidAs something that carries legal weight, I'd suggest a lot more circumspection of what precedent we establish.
Person X is responsible for giving person Y cause to believe that person Z warranted or somehow deserved the punishment that person Y inflicted upon person Z
It’s not really rocket science is it?
For example, how large of a dragnet would you cast when 5 Dallas police officers were executed in 2016? The shooter was led to believe falsely that police officers were going around indiscriminately shootings black men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers
How many politicians and reporters would you fine for this?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@techsouth saidWhy are you Qanoners all so blatant in your lies? Is the obviousness intentional, or do you really believe we don't see through you like through a freshly-washed pane of glass?
Never heard of Alex Jones until recently.
@shallow-blue saidThis is how fake news works.
Why are you Qanoners all so blatant in your lies? Is the obviousness intentional, or do you really believe we don't see through you like through a freshly-washed pane of glass?
How do I defend against this?
You can assert new "facts" out of thin air and draw inferences from them. I'd win every argument I was ever in if I was free to make up fiction and call it fact too.
I guess everything is black and white to liberals. You believe every narrative spoon fed to you by your team, so you project that same time of team reasoning on those in the other camp. You have no nuance in your thinking, so you presume no one else can have any nuance either.
@techsouth saidAll I got was a dislike for this.
As something that carries legal weight, I'd suggest a lot more circumspection of what precedent we establish.
For example, how large of a dragnet would you cast when 5 Dallas police officers were executed in 2016? The shooter was led to believe falsely that police officers were going around indiscriminately shootings black men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers
How many politicians and reporters would you fine for this?
Can someone who think's the Alex Jones verdict is above debate, can you please tell me who owes civil damages for these 5 police officers who were actually killed?
@sonhouse said😉
@KingDavid403
It IS a billion. There is another settlement he has to pay of 45 million or so and the two together are literally a billion dollars. Maybe he could pay it off in gold? A billion in gold is only about 30 tons🙂
Just think, Elon Musk could come up with 6 THOUSAND tons of gold or thereabouts🙂
@techsouth saidI would think that the contention that police officers were or are indiscriminately shooting black people is so widely held that it constitutes a valid perspective and not demonstrably untrue even though I don’t believe it’s true, but then I’m not a black person living in the Dallas area.
As something that carries legal weight, I'd suggest a lot more circumspection of what precedent we establish.
For example, how large of a dragnet would you cast when 5 Dallas police officers were executed in 2016? The shooter was led to believe falsely that police officers were going around indiscriminately shootings black men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers
How many politicians and reporters would you fine for this?
This was not a slur on a profession like ‘all police are racist thugs’, the target of Jones’s lies were specific identifiable people and he told specific detailed lies about them.
If there was an identifiable individual who falsely accused identifiable individuals of killing black people then yes that individual definitely bears responsibility for any deaths that occur.
@metal-brain saidthey thought they were actors, doing the bidding of the bad people trying to take their beloved guns.
How can anybody make death threats to a person they think does not exist?
If you can find the name of a parent it isn't a hoax, is it?
@kevcvs57 saidEarlier I was ridiculed by someone else with the following:
I would think that the contention that police officers were or are indiscriminately shooting black people is so widely held that it constitutes a valid perspective and not demonstrably untrue even though I don’t believe it’s true, but then I’m not a black person living in the Dallas area.
This was not a slur on a profession like ‘all police are racist thugs’, the target of ...[text shortened]... ing black people then yes that individual definitely bears responsibility for any deaths that occur.
Person X is responsible for giving person Y cause to believe that person Z warranted or somehow deserved the punishment that person Y inflicted upon person Z
It’s not really rocket science is it?
I brought up one challenging example. I could bring up many others. Almost every public figure receives death threats. It seems obvious that it will be difficult to establish civil liability against people who express negative opinions about someone when that person later receives death threats. More than a century of case law has wisely erred on the side of allowing criticism and disagreement, but lately we've isolated a few politically misaligned individuals who must stifle all disagreement and criticism because the risk that one of 330 million hearers might take things too far.
It's kind of like if Person X is of the wrong political side and he criticizes someone, people suddenly act as if it is obvious he must cease stating his opinion because someone, somewhere might be off their meds and get too mad. (Oddly, when Steve Scalise got shot at, no one seemed concerned that Democrats were to blame for all their hostile words).
But I have a hunch that there is some sort of secret "decoder ring" democrats use to determine which death threats are to be traced back to some political opponent and which ones not. There are 10s of thousands of death threats against public figures every year. I could research and probably find scores of them well documented. But in each case, I predict I'll get an explanation as to why that case is so obviously different than Alex Jones that we do not need to be concerned with setting bad precedents.
Here's a case:
Lebron James famously tweeted on a picture of a Ohio Policeman the words "You're Next #ACCOUNTABILITY". The police officer would later receive numerous death threats even though he was cleared of all wrongdoing.
Lebron James actually probably has more than $1 billion. Should he pay a civil fine?
What does your secret "decoder ring" say about this?
Something like "that's different. Lebron starts with the letter 'L' which also is the first letter in 'Love'. Alex starts with the letter 'A' which is the first letter in 'Animosity'".
Maybe you have a your own explanation as to why these cases are different, but probably no more astute than the one I gave.
Concerning the Dallas police officers, who were actually killed rather than receiving anonymous death threats (that happen thousands of time a day all over the country)... Is it your contention since people are slandering police officers in general (resulting in some being murdered), that it's okay because the slanderers aren't mentioning specific names to be targeted?
It would be easy to find MANY identifiable individuals who are falsely accusing police officers in general of wantonly killing black men. But you say they aren't liable because they don't mention specific police officers (even though they anger the gin up sometimes results in actual murders).
And why would you need to be black to know whether or not black men are being indiscriminatingly shot by police? Is there a secret stat page that we don't have access to?
Now this...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2022/10/18/george-floyds-family-will-sue-kanye-west-for-250-million-over-false-comments-about-death/?sh=13b5d59e1452
George Floyd's family is suing for $250 million because Kanye says George Floyd died from fentanyl.
$250 million for hurt feelings again. Obviously they are causing no monetary damages. And I have not heard any theory as to Kanye causing death threats against the Floyd family.
And as far as defamation goes, it is not disputed that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system that it could have caused death. So I don't see how he is being defamed. He took fentanyl and that's not disputed. Whether he died from it or not seemingly has no bearing on how good or bad a person he was.
Obviously George Floyd didn't personally claim to have died in any particular way. So he's not being accused of lying about the cause of his own death.
Thoughts on this one.
Did the Alex Jones case create a precedent that will lead to absurd cases?
@techsouth saidIt is absolutely disputed that he had enough fentanyl in his system to kill him!
Now this...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2022/10/18/george-floyds-family-will-sue-kanye-west-for-250-million-over-false-comments-about-death/?sh=13b5d59e1452
George Floyd's family is suing for $250 million because Kanye says George Floyd died from fentanyl.
$250 million for hurt feelings again. Obviously they are causing no monetary damages. And I ...[text shortened]...
Thoughts on this one.
Did the Alex Jones case create a precedent that will lead to absurd cases?
