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

491–500 of 787 posts

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

#491

Post by warbeforepeace »

pen2l wrote: post #364
tptacek wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it seems like he has personal assets in the high tens of millions of dollars, and that Free Speech Systems was probably worth into the 9 figures. If the verdict stands, all of that will get wiped out, and the question remaining will be whether the damages, which stem from an intentional tort, will be dischargeable when Jones is forced into bankruptcy non-ironically, rather than using it as a ploy. Still a lot of…

This always confused me, if someone is wiped out in this way how are they able to survive in the aftermath? Isn't this effectively sentencing them to homelessness forever, or is there a floor value in these wins that's always respected which accounts for some minimal cost amount of food+rent? And doesn't the responsibility to pay up remain for money made after the bankruptcy event? Or does declaring bankruptcy ensure…

Ask gawker.

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

#492

Post by akerl_ »

tptacek wrote: post #456
ncallaway wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Harm is required in all defamation. Harm is required in _most_ defamation. Some claims are considered "defamation per se", in which they are considered automatically harmful. - Indications that a person was involved in criminal - Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious - Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct - Indications that a person was involved in b…

Per se defamation establishes that harm has occurred whether or not it is specifically proved. I was going to well-actually the same comment you did, and instead bided my time to well-actually the predictable response. At any rate: per se defamation isn't at play in this case.

Much appreciated. I should have spelled this out more directly in my original comment, but this is what I meant about some kinds of harm being more obvious. Defamation per se exists largely to handle cases where harm occurred but it’s tough to point to a specific instance or assign it an easy dollar figure.

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

#493

Post by tptacek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #458
tptacek wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(a) Stuff like this is supremely unhelpful and corrosive to the thread. (b) It's obviously not the case that Jones is getting a sympathetic hearing from this thread; instead, you're noticing mostly the randos posting pro-Jones stuff that lives briefly before being flagged to the bottom of the site.

The poster is wholly correct in observing that Alex Jones has a disproportionate number of defenders here. Usually a busy thread might collect 2 or 3 flag-dead comments, this one has 23.

The point is that they're all flagged dead, not that this story didn't attract a bunch of new randos to post flagged comments. Anybody can make an account here to post nonsense with practically no effort at all; it's an open-access site.

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

#494

Post by pdonis »

anigbrowl wrote: post #396
pdonis wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The law leaves room for the jury to form such moral determinations on their own, and in this case they have done so. I disagree that this is in any way disastrous.

Where have they done so in this case? As far as I can tell, the plaintiffs didn't even allege damages from harassment in this case. They alleged damages from emotional distress due to the defamation.

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

#495

Post by tainfowars0320 »

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 post body was provided.

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

#496

Post by tptacek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #422
saalweachter wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honestly not against restoration of the code duello .

That's an extremely Jones-adjacent opinion to have.

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

#497

Post by cbtacy »

lovich wrote: post #185
zackees wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Your speech has power. That’s why we carve out free speech protections from the government so you always have some measure of power against it. That power also means it can be used to damage others. Being made to pay for damages you caused via speech is not censorship in the same way that being made to pay for damages you caused via fire is not censorship. If you want to argue that it doesn’t have the power to damage…

Thank you.

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

#498

Post by kaba0 »

rglover wrote: post #443
tptacek wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If you built a multimillion-dollar media enterprise and used it to state that you had actual knowledge that McDonalds used cat meat in their Quarter Pounders, McDonalds would likely end up owning your media enterprise, and might also erect a PlayPlace(tm) on the ground your house stood on. We just saw this happen to Oberlin a few weeks ago: you can do tens of millions of dollars of damage by materially misstating…

Right, but did he make a specific claim that he had specific, direct knowledge of Sandy Hook being a hoax (e.g., his usual trope of "we've got documents")? A parent (individual) isn't a corporation with profits to be damaged. I don't doubt a claim of emotional distress, but it's a stretch to say every single parent's character was defamed. As far as I saw from trial clips, one nutjob lady claimed Info Wars radicalize…

They were harassed by his followers across state lines, so yes, even a broke person’s life can be made orders of magnitude more difficult than it should be under normal conditions.

Also, let’s not walk this eggshell here of “did he make any specific claim”, this is the same bullshit that defends trump from calling covid hoax and whatnot.

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

#500

Post by more_corn »

Retric wrote: post #453
unknownaccount wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what the erosion of personal responsibility and accountability looks like. Alex Jones isnt responsible if stupid impressionable people watch his show and do stupid things. That is absurd and absolutely chilling in regards to free speech. Perhaps it even sets a new precedent that everyone who posts a comment/video/podcast online is now responsible for any illegal actions that any of their viewer commit.

Free speech isn’t simply the ability to say anything at anytime. If you lie under oath don’t expect a free speech argument to work. Similarly if you personally spread damaging lies, free speech doesn’t help etc etc. Free speech is most protected when when you take a political or religious stance, but the boundaries shrink dramatically when you talk about someone specific especially if they are simply a member of the…

I think the closing remark at the last trial was: “Speech is free, but you have to pay for the lies Mr Jones”
Post reply on HN