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

351–360 of 787 posts

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

#351

Post by dragontamer »

tptacek wrote: post #339
dragontamer wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> acting negligently > knew that it was false Wrong. The bar for negligence is "should have performed X, but failed to do so". Ex: A toddler dying by falling off a deck is negligence. The homeowner "should have repaired the deck", but failed to do so. (This bar would lead to negligent homicide or manslaughter, depending on jurisdiction). Similarly, a journalist "should have done basic research", but failed to do so,…

The standard relevant in most defamation cases is recklessness, not negligence.

I'm not a lawyer, do I can't say with much confidence what most "defamation cases" are.

But LII at least suggests that the law as written, is about negligence: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

EDIT: According to LII on libel: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel, there seems to be different awards for negligence, recklessness, and malice. Negligence is capped at actual injury, while recklessness and above can have punitive damages.

EDIT: Alex Jones's $965M penalty here is likely punitive? (I don't know for sure), which suggests that it was at least of the reckless level and proven so in court?

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

#352

Post by jjulius »

o_1 wrote: post #308
jjulius wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Say the wrong words and get financially destroyed for ever... This is an incredibly disingenuous take on Jones' actions here. Edit: For additional context, OP has a history of direct ties to conspiracy theories, Project Veritas, etc.. See: their profile.

This isn't twitter singling out a user for their opinions/posts isn't the discourse nature of HN. Please keep this type of behavior away from here.

In the context of the user making a very inaccurate comment about the free speech rights of someone running one of the largest conspiracy theory websites, it is worth highlighting their own strong connections to an organization very similar in intent/spirit to InfoWars. I provided no direct link to any personal accounts, did not doxx OP, and will defer to dang on this one.

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

#353

Post by tptacek »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #343
tptacek wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is. The jury literally just found those damages. These aren't punitive damages, they're compensatory. Punitive damages are the next phase of the case.

I accept that the jury labeled the amount as compensatory damage. But it is obviously the case that that amount of damage was not dealt. Nobody involved had a reputation that was worth $100 million dollars.

That's not obvious to me at all. Can a 9-figure media and supplements company inflict 25-50 million dollars on an individual? Sure they can. Selling the memory of a parent's murdered child and defaming them to the point where they are followed into different states by lunatics threatening their lives seems to easily cross that threshold. How disruptive would it be to my life if that happened to me? Over how many years? It's a huge amount of baseline injury, and then it's multiplied by the demonstrable profits earned by Free Speech Systems at their expense.

Remember, it's almost a billion dollars because twenty children were murdered at Sandy Hook, and Jones' company managed to target all of the parents. If only one parent had sued, we wouldn't be batting an eyelash at the resulting damages. But Jones built an immensely powerful media machine, and then aimed it very carefully at his own testicles. Play stupid games, &c &c.

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

#354

Post by jjulius »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #346
jjulius wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33183758

By this standard, a really large number of people have had their lives "permanently ruined" by all kinds of different things.

... and?

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

#355

Post by tedunangst »

mdp2021 wrote: post #323

Can somebody explain the statement from the lawyer, as reported by Axios: > «We disagree with the basis of the default, we disagree with the court’s evidentiary rulings. In more than 200 trials in the course of my career I have never seen a trial like this», Pattis added. «Today is a very, very dark day for freedom of speech» given that another bullet states > claimed the shooting was a "false flag" operation planned…

His lawyer is not very good.

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

#356

Post by timbit42 »

guywithahat wrote: post #262
colesantiago wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No one was physically hurt but they were certainly hurt psychologically and financially.

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

#357

Post by tptacek »

bachmeier wrote: post #338
thaumasiotes wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander. But a $965 million dollar judgment for libel or slander would have to be justified by comparable damages. That isn't the case here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages

Again: these aren't punitive damages.

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

#358

Post by saalweachter »

tptacek wrote: post #222
nilespotter wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes indeed. They would have been very pleased with someone being charged 1 billion dollars for saying that a single event didn't happen. Clearly they would have agreed that Jones is liable for the actions of his viewers. It's all right there in the founding documents.

Defamation law at the time of the framers was even harsher than it is today. Truth wasn't a defense, and there was no "actual malice" standard. You were as likely to be arrested and imprisoned for these kinds of statements as you were to be sued for damages. The founders would have been fine with this outcome.

The bigger debate would have been whether the matter should be pursued through the courts or if the defamer should be challenged to a duel.

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

#359

Post by anigbrowl »

SoftTalker wrote: post #206
tptacek wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm less certain. It looks like this mostly hinges on the bankruptcy filings, which weren't going great for Jones (as, of course, they should not, as they seem pretty bogus).

Bankruptcy notwithstanding, he almost certainly does not have $1B. He's a celebrity figure of sorts, but pretty fringe. It's a symbolic victory. He'll have to liquidate the bulk of whatever assets he may have, and the plaintiffs will get a few dollars when it's all said and done.

Yeah I think the object here is not to enrich the families but to make the costs actually matter instead of being a line item on his annual financials.

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

#360

Post by mejari »

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.

Calling what Jones did "say the wrong words" is not anywhere close to reality.
Post reply on HN