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

221–230 of 787 posts

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

#221

Post by ggm »

akerl_ wrote: post #188
dragontamer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't lie in the 1970s or 1980s. If you did, you would be sued for libel or slander (depending on how exactly you lied). In the 90s, 00s, and 10s, we somehow forgot about libel / slander laws. I'm happy to see that something as egregious as Alex's Jones's lies here are finally getting punished, but I'd like to see more protection from libel/slander in modern 2020s era America. ------ Lies, traditionally speaki…

At risk of being pedantic, the bar for defamation is considerably higher than “lying”. Very relevantly for cases like this, the plaintiffs were required to show that the false statements caused them harm, where the easiest kind of harm is financial harm (like losing your job because of the lie). Notably, I can put up a billboard in my town that says “All of dragontamer’s code is buggy and it makes your computer smell…

But it would naturally lead to lawyers letters and probably your apology and a costs settlement on the steps of the courthouse. The settlement might be zero sum, but you would expect a competent lawyer to advise you to back down gracefully all things being equal, assuming you lacked any evidence for a truth defence.

Oftentimes, the outcome isn't about winning in court. It's about the restitution of the potential harm.

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

#222

Post by tptacek »

nilespotter wrote: post #178
tptacek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The framers of the First Amendment understood and accepted the tort of defamation.

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.

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

#223

Post by norwalkbear »

tptacek wrote: post #172
norwalkbear wrote: post #153

Does he even have the money to pay nearly a billion dollars? Or is the point to bankrupt him with what seems like lawfare? America is not a place where people like being told to be quiet. Alex Jones went mainstream on the Joe Rogan show. Millions and millions of Rogan fans see Alex Jones are legitimized by this ruling. Joe Rogan has the biggest podcast in the world. Just some things to think about. Unintended consequ…

Those consequences being what, more people defaming the parents of dead children and losing their fortunes as a result? I don't think Rogan is dumb enough to make that particular mistake.

That's a very uncharitable interpretation.

Whether you like it or not, Alex Jones is insanely popular and so is Joe Rogan. Their audiences votes and can certainly tip elections.

I bet you never thought Trump would win in 2016. I knew that race would be close because I understand the mood of average Americans better than you.

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

#224

Post by bsder »

wara23arish wrote: post #96
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just "saying something is a hoax". It's deliberately lying, for years, for his own profit, in a way that caused significant amounts of damage to the people he was lying about. Should that be free from consequences? No. No, it should not be. And, since there was profit from the lying, shouldn't the damages be greater than the profit from the lies? Yes. Yes, it should be.

are we holding all news to the same account regarding deliberate lying for profit? i hate double standards

Sadly, no.

Liars on CNN get fired. Plaigiarists at the New York Times get fired.

Let's contrast this to ... say ... Fox "News".

Oh, wait, Fox testified in court that they weren't news.

Sorry, my fault.

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

#225

Post by donatj »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #203
donatj wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think holding a person accountable for another person's irrational behaviour is reasonable though. If you tell me "it's going to rain" and I take that as a call to attack people with umbrellas, is that your fault?

If I send someone to kill you would you consider me unaccountable?

That entirely misses the point. He didn't send the people. They acted on their own based on bad information he fed them. No call to action.

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

#226

Post by danans »

stuckinhell wrote: post #104

Quoted post unavailable.

> the establishment wants to shut Alex down for speaking the truth.

For speaking the "truth" that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation? No, he is being held liable for the effects of his broadcasting that lie.

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

#227

Post by lovich »

nilespotter wrote: post #178
tptacek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The framers of the First Amendment understood and accepted the tort of defamation.

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.

Did Alex jones only say that an event didn’t happen? Or is that perhaps skipping over the numerous other defamatory claims he made? Regardless this was a self own business jones refusing to defend himself and not continue to perjure himself repeatedly. He likely could have made all the same claims and walked away with a settlement or judgment in the low seven figures if he merely stopped lieing when caught and told to stop.

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

#229

Post by toomanyrichies »

alexnewman wrote: post #197

Stupid question, why not 1 trillion? Is it dischargeable in bankruptcy? I assume he won’t even get close to 1B. Figure it gets cut to 500M in appeals, and he doesn’t make 100M in his lifetime. What happens? I believe The largest fine paid by a banking executive responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis was $67.5 million

> he doesn’t make 100M in his lifetime.

Infowars made $165 million in 3 years [1].

1. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/alex-jon...

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

#230

Post by tootie »

wyager wrote: post #59
tootie wrote: post #6

I'm sure that will get reduced by the judge based on whatever state law, but it's a huge signal to Jones that he's an absolute monster.

The decisions of the courts are, by a wide margin, much more influenced by one's relationship with the regime than by one's relationship with morality.

You think Joe Biden influenced the jury? I guess it's worse position than having a president who was a praiseful guest on your show.
Post reply on HN