Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 360 posts

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#12

Post by [deleted] »

ericmcer wrote: post #2

Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? I don’t know all the rules around when speech isn’t protected but the article doesn’t really cover why this wasn’t. Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

[deleted]

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#14

Post by dragonwriter »

ericmcer wrote: post #2

Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? I don’t know all the rules around when speech isn’t protected but the article doesn’t really cover why this wasn’t. Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

> Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech?

No, while there are Constitutional limits (especially when the injured party is a public figure, see NY Times v. Sullivan), deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech.

> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

No, it just reinforces the existing precedent that people who deliberately or recklessly spread falsehoods about people can be sued by those injured by the falsehoods. Defamation isn't a new thing in law.

And this isn't the first time that has bitten Alex Jones.

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#15

Post by [deleted] »

ericmcer wrote: post #2

Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? I don’t know all the rules around when speech isn’t protected but the article doesn’t really cover why this wasn’t. Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

[deleted]

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#16

Post by evan_ »

jcranmer wrote: post #13
hamiltonians wrote: post #8

I thought it was 5 million. I wonder if he will get out of it like has done in the past... a lot of money

$4 million was the compensatory damages. $50 million is the punitive damages award.

It's right in the article:

> A jury in Texas ruled the radio host must pay $45.2m in punitive damages, in addition to $4.1m in compensatory damages they awarded a day earlier.

A bunch of people on Twitter are saying that usually Texas will limit punitive damages to $750,000, but there's also some arguments for why that may not apply in this situation, so we'll get to watch this ping-pong around for years probably before anyone actually gets paid.

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#17

Post by BurningFrog »

BooneJS wrote: post #5
ericmcer wrote: post #2

Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? I don’t know all the rules around when speech isn’t protected but the article doesn’t really cover why this wasn’t. Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

Defamation, Slander, etc. None are protected. Free speech protects you from the Government, not your fellow citizens.

The court is part of the government.

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#18

Post by RadixDLT »

ericmcer wrote: post #2

Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? I don’t know all the rules around when speech isn’t protected but the article doesn’t really cover why this wasn’t. Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

jones is a radio host thats why
Post reply on HN