391–400 of 787 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If those were the reasonable standards, every media-company would be broke. I'd argue traditional media reaches many more people and the impact of intentional lies is that much greater.
> If those were the reasonable standards, every media-company would be broke. That doesn't make it any less reasonable of a standard.
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.
I am asking honestly here- I am not sure if this is just typical engineer type "well actually..." type stuff going on, or if some attempt to downplay and discredit the judgement.
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?
He caused his fans to harass families of murdered children for years, several had to move, some multiple times. All the while Alex Jones was raking in millions in cash off it.
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…
It's a statement of opinion which perfectly fits under the guise of free speech. I can claim that McDonald's hamburgers are made of cat meat to lower prices and it's the exact same thing. It's only because it's political (and Jones is a perennial example to be paraded about as the standard for "evil far-right conservative extremist" thought) that it gets contorted into what it has. This will predictably bite people i…
(The numbers in the Oberlin case also flatly refute your argument as well; there, a conservative-friendly plaintiff won a number comparable to what the Sandy Hook parents won here. The big distinction is that there were many more Sandy Hook parents than there were defamed Oberlin candy store owners.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 rea…
> Defamation is inherently inciteful. That might be your personal opinion, but it's not the law. If nutjob A makes a defamatory statement about you, but doesn't tell anyone to do anything, and then nutjob B harasses you after hearing what nutjob A said, nutjob B is the one who is legally responsible for the harassment. Nutjob A is responsible for the defamation, but not for what other nutjobs might decide to do. Now…
This is more than the amount that people that lied about WDM's in the middle East were ever fined with. Consider they killed millions. Please know that I am not siding with Jones but this is ludicrous.
It does seem based far less on his actions than on their personal opinion of him. That ought to make everybody nervous.
A defendant has a right to trial by jury. The consequence of exercising that right is trial by a jury.
In some venues, "unfair" (quotes here because reasonable people can dispute how "fair" is to be assessed in a circumstance such as this) damages rulings are back-stopped by statutory maxima. I don't know Connecticut law, but that appears not to be the case here.
I don't want to live in a world where Alex Jones has access to a billion dollars. But TBH I don't really want to live in a world when Alex Jones exists at all.
> exists The issue is not with exceptions (every village is entitled to having a fool), but with the trend of large amounts of people giving them credit. Especially in a wave of mounting relativism trying to "soften the distance between lunacy and truth".
Agreed. Screw that neanderthal dummy Joe Rogan for giving credibility to Alex Jones.
I think that is grossly excessive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you follow the trial at all, you'll see that this was not just "he said a bad thing one time and people are mad at him." He has a strongly demonstrated pattern of lies, perjury, obstruction of the legal process, and encouraging harassment against the Sandy Hook families. Most of the people saying "everyone should be afraid of this" are arguing in bad faith.
but absolutely none of that, save the encouragement of harassment, has any bearing on what the victims suffered from the behavior the lawsuit is fundamentally about. These damages are, supposedly, compensatory, and so the only relevant factor is supposed to be what the victims actually suffered.