Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#121

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:48 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #99

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing against the entire legal concept of libel/defamation?

When I was in law school, in the before times, libel and defamation were treated as a holdover from British common law. We learned how they had been winnowed down in the long “arc of justice,” starting with the Zenger trial in 1735. This trend of weakening libel and defamation laws, and any constraints on speech, was treated as uniformly positive.

Weakening... but not down to nothing. It's a lot harder to be found guilty of libel in the US than in the UK, and that's a good thing. You still can be, though, and that is also a good thing.

("Guilty" may be the wrong word, because it's not a criminal offense, but I'm not sure what the right one is here.)

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#122

Post by AlexandrB » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:48 PM UTC

CodeSgt wrote: post #115

AlexandrB wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you truly think Alex Jones's speech inflicted a billion dollars worth of damage? I urge you to read up on Alex's conduct before, during, and after the trial(s). He spent most of his time mocking the process, attacking the judge, and continuing to defame the parents while failing to comply with basic discovery in a timely way. He also hired incompetent legal representation[1] - probably because they shared his wo…

I think you're right, had his conduct been better then his outcome would also likely have been much better. That said, I still think the amount is ludicrous and unjustifiable. Even if he had had actively encouraged his followers to burn down the homes and beat up the vehicles of every sandy hook parent the damages wouldn't have reached anywhere near a tenth of the amount he was fine. And as it happens, he didn't do t…

The courts are structured to be adversarial, so if I claim you owe me $1 million because of something you said, it is expected that you will vigorously defend yourself and through this process some compromise will be reached that will be more or less "just".

If the defendant fucks around instead of actually mounting a defence, of course the result is going to be a massive win for the plaintiffs. Do you expect the judge to step in and represent the interests of the defendant when the defendant seems uninterested in doing so himself? Alex had the money, connections, and profile to get a very good legal defence. He chose not to. I'm not really sure what you want the courts to do here.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#123

Post by Nevermark » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:52 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #31

standardUser wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you truly, genuinely think that is what people want, or are you constructing a straw man to beat up? Do you care to make a point, or are you just asking leading questions that create the illusion that you're making a point?

>Do you truly, genuinely think that is what people want Many do want something like this--as long as someone with their viewpoint is the one deciding what is true or false. >asking leading questions that create the illusion that you're making a point? It's called a rhetorical question.

Actually it’s called a leading question

A rhetorical question usually has an answer too obvious for any need to answer

A leading question creates a discussion on some topic, using the question instead of some new information or rational argument, to move the baseline assumptions of the discussion

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#124

Post by FridayoLeary » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #27

FridayoLeary wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean look at the twin fiascos of covid and Trump. People are all in favour of censorship when it suits them.

Letting your democracy and a large number of lives be taken away by easily disprovable lies isn't great either. I can't see a good way out of this; the libel suit against Alex Jones is just a tiny start at unwinding the problem. It's much more profitable, easier, and an effective route to power to lie.

I'm not talking about "easily disprovable lies". I'm talking about simple stuff such as "do masks help" when even the supposed "scientific evidence" did a 180. Experts seem to overreach often beyond their fields of expertise.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#125

Post by sieabahlpark » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

seydor wrote: post #120

ccn0p wrote: post #38

I see a lot of people critical of Turkey... and I agree. But the US is not too far away. See AB-2098 in California just signed by governor / likely presidential nominee Gavin Newson [1] which basically gives the state the ability to revoke medical licenses for spreading "false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific contrary to the standard of care" (in other words, go against the CDC or other sta…

still better than going to prison

No post body was provided.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#126

Post by etchalon » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

CodeSgt wrote: post #117

etchalon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a concept in our courts called "punitive damages", which exists specifically to punish someone beyond the scope of the "real" damage caused.

Ah neat, I'd heard that term before but didn't know it's real meaning. Thanks! How are punitive damages determined though? Surely there's still some methodology to follow when calculating them, I don't see how any reasonable methology would have arrived at $1b.

Punitive damage calculations vary state to state. Some states cap (TX, where Jones first loss was suffered) based on a multiplier of the "real" damages. Some states don't. In states that don't, punitive damages can be "whatever the jury decides", and the goal is usually to punish outrageous behavior with outsized amounts.

Because there were 14 individual people, with each getting an individual settlement amount, it added up quickly.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#127

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

CodeSgt wrote: post #97

lesuorac wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [1] Defendants’ latest malicious statements were part of a continuous pattern of five years of intentional and reckless harassment accomplished through dozens of disturbing video broadcasts, a relentless stream of recklessly false articles published on InfoWars.com, harassing social media content, as well as the encouragement, aid, and financial support to third-parties in furthering this 23 harassment. The lawsuit…

The lawsuit can claims whatever it likes. I didn't say that the lawsuit never claimed it. I said that I haven't actually seen evidence of Alex Jones actively encouraging the harrasment. If you have that, please share.

Alex Jones could have argued that he didn't do that. He could have presented evidence. Instead, he tried to game the courts, refusing discovery and refusing to follow standard court procedures. That kind of game results in the courts assuming that the other side is factually correct, without them having to prove it. It's like your football team losing because they never bothered to take the field.

Why did Jones take this approach? I see four possibilities, and they're all bad.

1. He didn't think the rules applied to him.

2. He thought the court system was corrupt enough that he couldn't get a fair trial.

3. He knew he was likely to lose on the facts anyway.

4. He thought that the publicity of "not cooperating with the system" (or whatever) would be more valuable than the cost of losing the case.

Whatever the reason, he did this to himself. He threw away his chance to refute the claims against him, and the result is that the claims against him are regarded as true.

Don't treat the courts as a show. They're not. There are real consequences for the kind of game Jones played.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#128

Post by Nevermark » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:56 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #37

pjc50 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting your democracy and a large number of lives be taken away by easily disprovable lies isn't great either. I can't see a good way out of this; the libel suit against Alex Jones is just a tiny start at unwinding the problem. It's much more profitable, easier, and an effective route to power to lie.

Banning political dissent to save democracy is "destroy[ing] the village in order to save it."

Dissent is not the same as lying.

In the worst case, people conflate the two to rationalize tolerance for having no repercussions for promoting damaging lies

And there can be wide gray areas where people’s perspectives, literacy of facts, or motives are too different to make a clear judgement between disagreement and reckless or intentional faslehoods.

But they are not the same

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#129

Post by luckylion » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:57 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #93

luckylion wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that Erdogan's opponents are moderately conservative and liberals, they'll probably not do much to suppress him and his voters if they ever win an election again.

What are you talking about? The secularist moderates and liberals suppressed the Muslim majority for nearly a century. They repeatedly banned Islamist political parties. This is a Muslim majority country where headscarves were banned for decades.

Headscarves were not banned in general, they were only banned for public servants during work (because Turkey was a secular country, not an Islamic country, and the population wasn't Islamist, a solid 40% don't wear headscarves at all), they were banned from public institutions only after 1980, which isn't anywhere close to a century ago, and by the military, not Erdogan's political opponents.

I suppose we'll disagree on what amounts to being oppressed. Non-extremists Muslims in Turkey weren't suppressed, and they won't be if Erdogan goes peacefully. The liberals and leftist parties had just as much to fear from the military.

Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’

#130

Post by pen2l » Fri, Oct 14, 2022, 3:57 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #99

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing against the entire legal concept of libel/defamation?

When I was in law school, in the before times, libel and defamation were treated as a holdover from British common law. We learned how they had been winnowed down in the long “arc of justice,” starting with the Zenger trial in 1735. This trend of weakening libel and defamation laws, and any constraints on speech, was treated as uniformly positive.

Do folks going through law school grasp how proliferation of libelous and defamatory statements happens now, without friction and at the speed of light? And the outsized impact it can have as compared to times ago? I would posit that libel and defamation should be even weightier issues than when British common law was around. We live in a time of companies dropping employees like stones seconds after they've gone viral in a poor light and loonies across the globe being galvanized into partaking in many shades of atrocities at the prodding of people who are learned in the ways of persuasive and effective oratory. The import of community (religious or merely cultural) was stronger back then, if someone was saying something shitty in earlier times they'd get a stern talking to by peers and community leaders. Things have changed, the power of those institutions has waned, tort law should thus come back stronger than ever to fill in the new gaps.

I'm encouraged in seeing the turnout of Alex Jones ordeal and am anxiously waiting to see how Dominion vs Fox News unfolds. I am hoping that the aftermath of all this is that journalists/people-pretending-to-be-journalists/anyone-with-a-sizable-platform will be more careful about their reporting and statements. Of course this is all a murky area because many times it's hard to decide what is true and even harder to decide who gets to do the deciding but for getting the obvious things wrong and when signs of bad faith are clearly there the hammer should get dropped more often, I think such an environment would reduce chaos and extremism that we are seeing more and more of.