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

211–220 of 787 posts

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

#211

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

> No this is not good news. Say the wrong words and get financially destroyed for ever is a feature of failed societies: dictatorships, and totalitarian counties.

Oh please, Jones is no way a victim. Your idea of a successful society is one that richly rewards wilful dishonesty - not the kind intended to amuse or entertain, like fiction or the tall tales shared by Art Bell, but by deliberately ruining other people's lives.

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

#212

Post by jfengel »

dragontamer wrote: post #93
zackees wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 speaki…

Lies are covered by the first amendment. There is a rather narrow exception for lies that can be proven to have harmed somebody, and you can prove that they knew that they were acting negligently (i.e. knew that it would case harm and knew that it was false). Those are very high bars to meet.

Beyond that, you can lie your head off. Jones has been lying for decades. This is the first time that it was so egregious that somebody managed to drag it across the finish line for a civil judgment.

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

#213

Post by Pxtl »

To the free speech purists in this thread, I have a hypothetical I'm curious about:

What if it happened to you? Let's imagine that a media source with millions of viewers - like a local news channel, for example, or a radio show, went live with a story that had specific and false allegations that you did something odious. Like they said you were a cannibal or a pedophile or something like that. And as a result, you were faced with a campaign of harassment and threats by fans of this source. If people googled your name, "Cannibal" was the top hit.

And they made millions of dollars from these allegations.

What would your recourse be?

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

#214

Post by JumpCrisscross »

adamrezich wrote: post #193
fairity wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bringing up unpunished propaganda during the Bush era is irrelevant when most here would agree that was equally vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right. The predominant perspective here is that free speech should be protected, but if you are spreading lies to make a profit, society ought to take back that profit. That seems like a pretty reasonable take to me, but I'd entertain counterarguments if you have…

Quoted post unavailable.

> I lack the vocabulary and metaphorcraft necessary to even begin to break down such a false equivalence

Odd given it was your comment, not the one you're replying to, that first drew the analogy.

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

#215

Post by glenstein »

FireBeyond wrote: post #157
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…

> And even if it is what the jury just decided, Jones' company is already "bankrupt" (yet still on the air) I was under the impression the courts were "unwinding" (perhaps not the correct technical term) some of his bankruptcy efforts for precisely this - being illusory efforts to avoid consequences, rather than functional lack of solvency.

I am under the same impression. Everything I've heard re: the bankruptcy filings suggests that none of his machinations will protect his assets from the courts.

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

#216

Post by fairity »

People gawking at the magnitude of the fine are perhaps underestimating the scale of profit being generated from the enterprise in question. To be clear, I'm not sure one way or the other, but I'd keep an open mind to the possibility that it's actually possible to collect a large fraction of this penalty.

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

#217

Post by MisterBastahrd »

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.

His speech isn't being suppressed. The government didn't arrest him. He's being sued for damages he caused to the families of the victims he lied about. That's as American as it gets.

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

#218

Post by Pxtl »

pGuitar wrote: post #169
Pxtl wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Analysis of their financials showed that, on good days, Jones' show would bring in $800K/day. Obviously that doesn't mean they have a billion in assets, but it does speak to how large their operation is.

Apple and other large businesses get fined nowhere near what they have in assets.... no matter how bad their actions are. One billion is just crazy in this case...

On the other hand, Gawker network was completely obliterated for copyright infringement over the Hulk Hogan thing. That seems more disproportionate than this.

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

#219

Post by donatj »

AlexandrB wrote: post #190
donatj wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think holding a person accountable for another person's irrational behaviour is reasonable though. If you tell me "it's going to rain" and I take that as a call to attack people with umbrellas, is that your fault?

Seems like the kind of thing a jury of your peers could decide. Kind of like what happened in this case. It also bears mentioning that the gulf between "it's going to rain" and "the parents of murdered children are actually 'deep-state' actors aiding a conspiracy to take away your rights" is vast.

Neither contains a call to action.

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

#220

Post by AlexandrB »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #148
AlexandrB wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should look at the theatrics Alex engaged in during the trial as well as his repeated failure to provide documents during discovery. He was arguably incompetently represented[1] (Infowars is probably going to sue their lawyer[2]) while treating the trial(s) as both a joke or a conspiracy against him. With that kind of behaviour, I'm not sure what kind of outcome he expected - him and his legal team failed…

I am explicitly not siding with Alex Jones in any way.

Not saying that you are. But if Alex tried to make a mockery of the litigation he was facing why is the outcome disproportionate in your opinion? Didn't he undermine the process with his own actions here?
Post reply on HN