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

261–270 of 787 posts

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

#261

Post by shadowgovt »

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.

It is incredibly hard in the US legal system to make a defamation claim stick. Relative to other nations (in particular the UK, which the US shaped some of its law in direct reaction to around 1776), there are several defenses to defamation.

The fact that in spite of all those assume-no-malice protections for a defendant this lawsuit still found him guilty says a lot about this case specifically, and very little about the risks of merely "saying the wrong thing" (at least under a US legal framework).

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

#262

Post by guywithahat »

colesantiago wrote: post #155
Overtonwindow wrote: post #10

I think that is grossly excessive.

I think that it is not grossly excessive enough .

The argument is that his supporters harassed sandy hook victims, to my knowledge nobody was hurt and certainly nobody died from the harassment. If this isn't enough, what would be enough? And what would be appropriate compensation if he had encouraged violence against them/etc?

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

#263

Post by mdp2021 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #186

Bad headline. The jury ordered Jones to pay this; the headline as written suggests he made a commitment to do so, which is untrue (he plans to appeal). 'Alex Jones must pay' or 'Alex Jones ordered to pay' would be more meaningful.

It is much simpler: one is expected to just copy the original unless there are very valid reasons to edit it...

Edit: the submitter explained - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33183697 - that the original title at the time of submission is the given one; the target news agency then edited the page. Oh well - some possibility for which we must take a mental note.

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

#264

Post by akerl_ »

dragontamer wrote: post #235
akerl_ wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At risk of being pedantic, the bar for defamation is considerably higher than “lying”. Very relevantly for cases like this, the plaintiffs were required to show that the false statements caused them harm, where the easiest kind of harm is financial harm (like losing your job because of the lie). Notably, I can put up a billboard in my town that says “All of dragontamer’s code is buggy and it makes your computer smell…

> the plaintiffs were required to show that the false statements caused them harm IIRC, only for public figures. The bar is far lower for private figures btw. A lot of libel/slander that would pass for public figures (ie: Politicians) are absolutely illegal and would be charged if levied against private figures instead (such as me, or the Sandy Hook victims) > Notably, I can put up a billboard in my town that says “A…

Harm is required in all defamation. Public figures additionally must prove “actual malice” on the part of the defendant, which is a term of art distinct from the common usage of “malice”

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

#265

Post by lovich »

norwalkbear wrote: post #223
tptacek wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those consequences being what, more people defaming the parents of dead children and losing their fortunes as a result? I don't think Rogan is dumb enough to make that particular mistake.

That's a very uncharitable interpretation. Whether you like it or not, Alex Jones is insanely popular and so is Joe Rogan. Their audiences votes and can certainly tip elections. I bet you never thought Trump would win in 2016. I knew that race would be close because I understand the mood of average Americans better than you.

What are you implying then? That if someone gets popular enough we should all just roll over and let them do as they please? I’m failing to see a different interpretation when you end with

> Just some things to think about. Unintended consequences.

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

#266

Post by tptacek »

jfengel wrote: post #212
dragontamer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Lies are covered by the First Amendment" is not good legal analysis. Material misstatements of fact that cause damages are all actionable, regardless of how egregious they are. Statements of opinion, or unintentional misstatements of fact regarding public figures, or misstatements of fact that cause no provable damages are "protected", in the same sense all speech is protected.

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

#267

Post by permo-w »

sneak wrote: post #256
sdtriton wrote: post #228

The people who released opioids upon the American public didn't get fines like this. Insane

Cigarettes kill 7x as many as opiates in the USA every hour, day, week, month, and year. Those companies aren't even fined or put behind a prescription-wall.

that is true but they also aren't allowed to advertise, have massive additional taxes placed on them, and huge public information campaigns against their use

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

#268

Post by epgui »

notacoward wrote: post #80
miked85 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The first amendment binds only the government, not private torts. It has never applied to libel, slander, fraud, or a host of other things either. Bringing it up in this context, especially as a one-line throwaway, is an act of extreme bad faith. No sane definition of "free speech" precludes accountability for one's words or their tangible effects.

Don’t attribute to bad faith what is easily explained by stupidity! Commenter almost certainly wasn’t writing in malice.

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

#269

Post by anigbrowl »

pdonis wrote: post #234
techsupporter wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of them have been (for example: https://www.mcall.com/hc-sandy-hook-denier-harrassment-0225-... ) but the main problem is that it is, as most of us posting here know, difficult to track down the individuals directly performing the harassment. Alex Jones is directly inciting people to go harass the plaintiffs so he bears liability for his actions.

> Alex Jones is directly inciting people to go harass the plaintiffs Where is this accusation made by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit? The only accusation I see is that Jones and his associates made defamatory false statements about the plaintiffs. As far as I can tell, that was the basis for the ruling, not any claims of incitement.

Defamation is inherently inciteful. If I publicly accuse you of a horrible crime, and I have a sufficiently broad audience, you are going to have to deal with assholes coming up to you and saying 'you're the evil person who committed a horrible crime!'. At best you get harrassed, at worse your safety is at risk from would-be vigilantes, revenge-seekers, and people who need a punching bag for sadistic or strategic reasons of their own.

Of course, you can argue that there's no direct causal relationship because Jones or whoever can say 'I'm not saying to do something, but....'. But so what? If an outcome is statistically predictable there doesn't have to be a direct nexxus, a proximate one is sufficient.

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

#270

Post by shadowgovt »

sdtriton wrote: post #228

The people who released opioids upon the American public didn't get fines like this. Insane

Jones did an impressive job of maximizing his liability directly via his words on the stand.

Pharmaceutical companies, in general, know how to listen to their lawyers and shut the hell up.

Post reply on HN