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

Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 787 posts

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#91

Post by datalopers »

wyager wrote: post #71
sterlind wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jones stated that the Sandy Hook victims were crisis actors. he knew that to be false. it was an egregious case of defamation. knowingly spreading lies that damage someone's reputation is called slander, and it's not protected by the first amendment. neither is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or committing perjury, or falsifying your income taxes.

You're making up a narrative for why suppressing free speech is acceptable in this instance, not discharging the notion that free speech was, in fact, suppressed. The fact that a conspiracy talk radio guy can get hit with a billion dollar fine for some off-hand nutso claim (that he subsequently recanted!) is a very unpromising barometer for the health of free speech in our country.

The fact that you defend this type of measurably harmful rhetoric as "free speech" is beyond fucking disgusting.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#93

Post by dragontamer »

zackees wrote: post #24
ivraatiems wrote: post #4

This is great news, but we should temper our expectations: It's likely that Jones will appeal and keep this tied up for years before he has to pay anything. Even if he is eventually obligated to pay some amount, it is unlikely to be what the jury just decided. And even if it is what the jury just decided, Jones' company is already "bankrupt" (yet still on the air) and he will almost certainly avoid liability through…

Quoted post unavailable.

You couldn't lie in the 1970s or 1980s. If you did, you would be sued for libel or slander (depending on how exactly you lied).

In the 90s, 00s, and 10s, we somehow forgot about libel / slander laws. I'm happy to see that something as egregious as Alex's Jones's lies here are finally getting punished, but I'd like to see more protection from libel/slander in modern 2020s era America.

------

Lies, traditionally speaking, have NEVER been covered by the 1st Amendment. I dunno why we stopped punishing them as a society. But its a good thing that we're remembering about them today.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#94

Post by carabiner »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #51
belval wrote: post #5

So how were the damage calculated? I get that this guy is a nutjob but how can saying something is a hoax get you a 1B fine?

It's not just "saying something is a hoax". It's deliberately lying, for years, for his own profit, in a way that caused significant amounts of damage to the people he was lying about. Should that be free from consequences? No. No, it should not be. And, since there was profit from the lying, shouldn't the damages be greater than the profit from the lies? Yes. Yes, it should be.

Kind of an aside, but this theatric style of writing is irritating to read on HN. It also confuses the point here: Jones's payment isn't about what "should" be done based on personal morals, but what is dictated by law, and that is what GP is asking and the question you are ignoring.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#95

Post by diydsp »

donatj wrote: post #70

Quoted post unavailable.

>Calling someone a "crisis actor" is like saying they are from Mars and have 3 arms. No reasonable person is going to believe it.

I've had to counter that argument from many of my high school classmates on facebook. They repeat these statements like sheep from Animal Farm.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#96

Post by wara23arish »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #51
belval wrote: post #5

So how were the damage calculated? I get that this guy is a nutjob but how can saying something is a hoax get you a 1B fine?

It's not just "saying something is a hoax". It's deliberately lying, for years, for his own profit, in a way that caused significant amounts of damage to the people he was lying about. Should that be free from consequences? No. No, it should not be. And, since there was profit from the lying, shouldn't the damages be greater than the profit from the lies? Yes. Yes, it should be.

are we holding all news to the same account regarding deliberate lying for profit?

i hate double standards

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#97

Post by alexb_ »

zackees wrote: post #24
ivraatiems wrote: post #4

This is great news, but we should temper our expectations: It's likely that Jones will appeal and keep this tied up for years before he has to pay anything. Even if he is eventually obligated to pay some amount, it is unlikely to be what the jury just decided. And even if it is what the jury just decided, Jones' company is already "bankrupt" (yet still on the air) and he will almost certainly avoid liability through…

Quoted post unavailable.

I normally would agree with you - I'm very pro free speech - but what Alex Jones did was not just "the wrong words", it was blatant slander that permanently ruined the lives of these people. I understand why you're concerned, but we've had slander laws forever, and this is exactly what it's used for.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#98

Post by jmull »

chatterhead wrote: post #49
budder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be ok if he wasn’t profiting from it?

HN doesn't like these kinds of questions. You're right - it is OK as long as he's not profiting nor has a bullhorn the size of his. Otherwise, Wolfgang Halbig would be in the same kind of shit. He isn't.

HN isn't one guy with coherent views...

But anyway, it's not a very good question because it isn't plausibly serious nor logically related to the previous post.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#100

Post by CRWW »

donatj wrote: post #70

Quoted post unavailable.

So the extraordinary amount of harassment the families received as a result of the crap he was spewing is completely meaningless? Sure no reasonable person is going to believe it but there are a lot of gullible idiots that eat up everything he says. Really easy to say you could shrug it off when your family wasn't just murdered.
Post reply on HN