571–580 of 787 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be ok if he wasn’t profiting from it?
HN doesn't like these kinds of questions. You're right - it is OK as long as he's not profiting nor has a bullhorn the size of his. Otherwise, Wolfgang Halbig would be in the same kind of shit. He isn't.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions>
See the first seven items under HN guidelines for "In Comments":
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that what it will amount to? He’ll declare bankruptcy and everything he’s got will go to settling some fraction of these lawsuits.
> He’ll declare bankruptcy Sure, but debts from frauds and willful and malicious harms, includong associated punitive damages, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He made hundreds of millions of dollars spreading his lies. He shouldn't profit from that, and should be forced to give all the revenue to the families he effected with his lies. You shouldn't be able to profit off of others misery like that, get caught out, and then go whoopsy and pay a small percentage of all the money you made off of it. That just encourages you and others to do it again.
But maybe he does not think they're lies. He thinks he is spreading the truth. Doesn't that make a difference, from lying on purpose for profit? The same for the people giving him money. They don't care what he says, they never believed Sandy Hook was real for starters. They give him money because they want to see it "uncovered" and investigated from the only "journalist" that takes it
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation>
Belief is not an element of the definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I accept that the jury labeled the amount as compensatory damage. But it is obviously the case that that amount of damage was not dealt. Nobody involved had a reputation that was worth $100 million dollars.
That's not obvious to me at all. Can a 9-figure media and supplements company inflict 25-50 million dollars on an individual? Sure they can. Selling the memory of a parent's murdered child and defaming them to the point where they are followed into different states by lunatics threatening their lives seems to easily cross that threshold. How disruptive would it be to my life if that happened to me? Over how many year…
Damages for wrongful death usually don't even go this high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First amendment isn’t under attack. True, but... > Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. The courts are part of the government, and Constitutional limits on government power apply to civil liability; the First Amendment, quite notably, restricts the conditions in which defamation liability can be applied.
> The courts are part of the government Right, but that is not how the law is applied. In a civil lawsuit, court or the government is not the plaintiff or the defendant, and therefore first amendment protections do not apply. There are first amendment protections when public officials are involved in the defamation suit. But beyond that, it is well established that first amendment does not protect this kind of speech…
It absolutely is, which is why thr First Amendment limits the conditions in which civil defamation damages can be awarded, see, e.g., Times v. Sullivan.
EDIT: In fact, Times v. Sullivan rejects this specific argument, saying: “Although this is a civil lawsuit between private parties, the Alabama courts have applied a state rule of law which petitioners claim to impose invalid restrictions on their constitutional freedoms of speech and press. It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action [...]. The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has in fact been exercised.”
> There are first amendment protections when public officials are involved in the defamation suit. But beyond that, it is well established that first amendment does not protect this kind of speech.
This is completely wrong. Times v. Sullivan, the landmark case applying the 1A to defamation, and subsequent cases elaborating the Constitutional limits of defamation liability established both basic 1A rules for all defamation cases, and additional rules for public figures (not just public officials, but also others who seek public attention), and matters of public concern. Among the rules applicable to all cases, not just public figures and public concern are:
(1) Opinion is Constitutionally protected and cannot be defamation (as it could be in some jurisdictions before),
(2) Falsity is required element of defamation and must be proved by the plaintiff, it cannot be presumed with the truth as a defense (as, again, it was in some jurisdictions)
(3) Fault (at least simple negligence) is a Constitutionally-required required element; defamation cannot be strict liability (as, again, it was in some jurisdictions prior to the Constitutional rule being articulated by the Court),
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't independent actors because they were highly impressionable people whose actions were influenced by Jone's lies.
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.
There aren't laws against defamation and libel because it's super meany. It's because the damages people sustain from having lies spread around town about them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not obvious to me at all. Can a 9-figure media and supplements company inflict 25-50 million dollars on an individual? Sure they can. Selling the memory of a parent's murdered child and defaming them to the point where they are followed into different states by lunatics threatening their lives seems to easily cross that threshold. How disruptive would it be to my life if that happened to me? Over how many year…
I don't see how a company can inflict $25 million in damages per person. Damages for wrongful death usually don't even go this high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an extremely Jones-adjacent opinion to have.
Feel free to support that claim in some way. Most of Jones' opinions seem to revolve around the idea that cabals of conspirators are trying to trick people into accepting exploitation or tyranny. I don't keep up with all his different ideas, though.
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.
What's really abhorrent is that people are invoking "freedom" (in this case of speech) to defend someone who is a major player in the movement toward authoritarian control over literally every part of our lives. If I hadn't lost all respect for such people decades ago, I certainly would now.