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

521–530 of 787 posts

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

#521

Post by dsfyu404ed »

kaba0 wrote: post #484
unknownaccount wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but this still establishes a scary new precedent; that any podcaster/videomaker is now legally responsible for any illegal actions that their viewers commit on their own accord. I can imagine how this will result in people being scared to criticize any leader or person in power because their comment/video might inspire some crazy person to harass them for which they will be found legally responsible.

It’s like there is this wall between US people’s understanding of free speech and a usual EU residents’. The same way Holocaust denial should be punishable, there are sane rules that must be abided, otherwise only chaos ensues. It won’t take you down an Orwellian dystopia any time soon, if anything, allowing these criminals selling an alternative reality will.

>wall between US people’s understanding of free speech and a usual EU residents’

If the split so nicely mirrored political boundaries we wouldn't be having this discussion. We're having this discussion because incompatible ideologies are fighting for control of one country.

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

#522

Post by pen2l »

Kesseki wrote: post #489
pen2l wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, there is usually a floor value. Most states enumerate some types and amounts of property, and some amounts of income, that are exempt from civil judgment collection. It's the same thing for bankruptcy: there are exemptions that allow you to keep a certain amount. A bankruptcy discharge does usually ensure a clean slate for new ventures. However, some types of debt are "nondischargeable" and can survive a bankrup…

I think if I was in law school and I was being told about these defamation laws and the potential for someone to be sued out of virtually their entire wealth, that would not have sat well with me. But here we are, and Alex Jones' antics prove to be an excellent rejoinder to those doubts.

Still however, I wish the laws were more selective about which funds are ripe for being taken from. E.g., Alex Jones should have to pay up for money that was made from the source of the problem (the podcasts in this case), if he had, say, funds attained from a side-business of roofing, those should be untouched. And if he continues with his roofing business, maybe we shouldn't be taking all of those funds. Otherwise, I fear we are really just erecting disincentives for them to be good and upstanding contributors to society. As losing defendants of these battles are likely to be a perilous group, the issue probably deserves more careful handling. What are your thoughts?

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

#523

Post by saila »

paganel wrote: post #430

Blatantly copying from Twitter [1], but it's what I believe, also: > The largest fine paid by a banking executive responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis was $67.5 million A few tens of millions would have set straight almost everyone involved, the victims getting their money, Jones having to pay out of his pocket. But $1 billion means Jones will never be able to pay the sum, and, what's more, it will also silence…

Jones is already back on his show deriding the victims, saying he won't pay, and soliciting money. Given his conspiratorial bent and the type of people who support him, I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't hurt him as much as you'd think, because it reinforces their world view and will make them double down even further. Even if he ends up paying out substantial amounts, which would take years, I think he'll be just fine. The only thing that would really take him out would be if he went to jail for fraud or something.

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

#524

Post by danans »

tptacek wrote: post #487
rglover wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, that was well established --- as it has to be in any defamation case, lest the case be dismissed. Moreover, it doesn't much matter, because he deliberately defaulted the trial itself, so the only question for the jury was damages. If you haven't followed this case at all, it's pretty easy to quickly Google the background, and you'll immediately fine that "defamation in this case doesn't make much sense" is proba…

> Moreover, it doesn't much matter, because he deliberately defaulted the trial itself, so the only question for the jury was damages

Which seems to indicate that his end game is to hope for the broader political winds to shift so radically rightward that this judgement against him is somehow unenforceable, perhaps because the very enforcement apparatus has been destroyed by that shift.

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

#525

Post by rglover »

kaba0 wrote: post #498
rglover wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They were harassed by his followers across

Those are individuals who should be tried independently of Jones. By that standard, anybody who goes and commits a crime because of song lyrics should find the artist tried as an accomplice.

It's not "walking on eggshells," it's a matter of legal accuracy. You may not like it, but it's important for maintaining a fair courts system (without which, we forfeit a civil society and revert to tribalism).

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

#526

Post by rglover »

ep103 wrote: post #520
rglover wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am free to make any statements I please, in any manner I please, and claim protection under the right to free speech Yes, you are. > things like defamation and libel law simply do not exist. I never said they didn't exist.

I understand your response, but thankfully this community doesn't have to take the word of a terroristic pedophile truthfully. Thank god for your interpretation of the 1st amendment!

Good thing I prefer putting the screws to adult women.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/facc1f5a-91e1-42b9-9d72-d36ee88...

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

#527

Post by rglover »

mdp2021 wrote: post #516
rglover wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am free to make any statements I please, in any manner I please, and claim protection under the right to free speech Yes, you are. > things like defamation and libel law simply do not exist. I never said they didn't exist.

People should not be encouraged to nurture unsound opinions.

They shouldn't be encouraged, but if they feel so compelled they should be free to state them.

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

#528

Post by tptacek »

rglover wrote: post #525
kaba0 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They were harassed by his followers across Those are individuals who should be tried independently of Jones. By that standard, anybody who goes and commits a crime because of song lyrics should find the artist tried as an accomplice. It's not "walking on eggshells," it's a matter of legal accuracy. You may not like it, but it's important for maintaining a fair courts system (without which, we forfeit a civil societ…

So far no part of the argument you've presented has had anything to do with US defamation law, just for what it's worth. If you're trying to be persuasive, that might be the part of your argument you should opt to shore up. In the alternative, you could adopt the somewhat more popular strategy of "the entire edifice of US defamation law is incongruous with the Constitution and should be thrown out". That argument is wrong too, but it'll get you farther.

later edit; I wrote the following I think as the reply below was being written

If you watched the Texas Jones trial, you saw the jury be instructed in some detail on what forms of damage they could and could not attribute to Jones. But you can also just look this up; there's no shortage of documents on the Internet that lay out the procedure for attributing damages to a proven case of defamation.

Long story short: if you damage somebody's reputation with false statements and, following causally from that damage, they suffer losses because lunatics start harassing them on the street, you are in fact liable for those losses.

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

#529

Post by warbeforepeace »

pdonis wrote: post #303
anigbrowl wrote: post #269

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…

Well he did also send one of his own employees to fuck with the family too. Dan Bidonde (probably spelled that wrong).

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

#530

Post by akerl_ »

rglover wrote: post #525
kaba0 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They were harassed by his followers across Those are individuals who should be tried independently of Jones. By that standard, anybody who goes and commits a crime because of song lyrics should find the artist tried as an accomplice. It's not "walking on eggshells," it's a matter of legal accuracy. You may not like it, but it's important for maintaining a fair courts system (without which, we forfeit a civil societ…

There’s criteria for defamation. Jones likely met them, but it didn’t matter here because he lost by default in the trial due to his overwhelming failure to engage with the legal system in his own defense.

If an artist published songs with lyrics that met the criteria for defamation, and then people heard the song and committed crimes, the artist would be liable for defamation and the listeners who committed crimes would be guilty of those crimes (notably, defamation is civil, not criminal).

If you’re curious what constitutes defamation, it’s not a complex list: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation .

Post reply on HN