Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families • Hacker News Board

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

#621

Post by kasey_junk » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 1:54 AM UTC

yucky wrote: post #595

tptacek wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally how tort damages work. The inverse of your logic would imply that defamation wouldn't be actionable at all; reputation damage, after all, concerns entirely what unrelated third parties do with your misstatements.

Yes because thinking a BILLION dollar fine is absurd for saying dumb shit online, clearly means there should be no torts at all. What it really means is for this fine to make sense, we need to start fining other people and companies TRILLIONS. I feel like I'm in an Austin Powers movie, or worse, on Reddit.

What if he made 1.2 Billion off of his grift that attacked actual people?

He isn’t going to jail (which seems like it should be in play to me).

He’s just not able to keep any of his ill gotten gains. It’s really hard to feel sympathetic here.

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

#622

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 1:54 AM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #602

dredmorbius wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is stopping him from doing so. That ... may remain to be seen. Though it does seem to presently be the case.

>>No one is stopping him from doing so. >That ... may remain to be seen. Though it does seem to presently be the case. What legal mechanism might someone use to stop Alex Jones from saying whatever the hell he wants? I mean, sure, a bullet to the brain or a successful car bomb would shut him up, but that's murder. IIUC (IANAL), Alex Jones can, while in the United States (with certain very limited exceptions), say wha…

One example might be legal injunctions, which could prohibit specific actions directly. These may be temporary or permanent, and are generally applied through civil law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunction>

In cases of professional or corporate misconduct, individuals may be stripped of professional certification (e.g., law, medical, or engineering licences), or barred from participating in specific roles within an organisation. An example, also from a civil (rather than criminal) case is this temporary bar against participating in hedge-fund activities:

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2016-3>

A third possibility might be to have a mandate that a representative of the plaintiff's be granted a board seat, editorial oversight, or some similar role in any future media role held by Alex Jones. I'm not aware of any specific similar instance, though lawsuits seeking, e.g., board representation, have been filed. See:

https://www.wral.com/lawsuit-seeks-board-seats-for-unaffilia...>

In cases of cybercrime there are many instances of punishments (typically criminal law in this case) of defendants being barred from Internet access. That seems to have somewhat fallen from favour though I believe it's still practiced. A 2003 discussion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/business/barring-web-use-...>

Mind: I'm not a lawyer.

That said, none of these options involve bullets

________________________________

Late edit: Another example of extant prior restraint would be prepublication review, a process which applies to members of the intelligence and justice communities. I just heard a mention of it during a Fresh Air interview of Geoffrey Berman. It's described (for the NSA/CSS) here:

https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/Prepublication-Review/>

That's not at play here, but does give an example of prior restraint on free speech under US jurisdiction.

It also brings up the matter of classified information and that system's impacts on free speech. C.f., Edward Snowden.

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

#623

Post by yucky » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #621

yucky wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because thinking a BILLION dollar fine is absurd for saying dumb shit online, clearly means there should be no torts at all. What it really means is for this fine to make sense, we need to start fining other people and companies TRILLIONS. I feel like I'm in an Austin Powers movie, or worse, on Reddit.

What if he made 1.2 Billion off of his grift that attacked actual people? He isn’t going to jail (which seems like it should be in play to me). He’s just not able to keep any of his ill gotten gains. It’s really hard to feel sympathetic here.

We don't need to ask "what if" because we know he made nothing remotely close to a billion. So now what?

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

#624

Post by budder » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #616

dredmorbius wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would take a different tack on this: the speech was legally unhindered, that is, free. The consequences of the speech are, however, borne by the speaker. I'm not sure this covers all cases of consequential burdening, but it does seem to cover many of them. A future prohibition on speech, gag order, banning from online or broadcast services, etc., might be a harder case to make, though these could still be seen as s…

> I would take a different tack on this: the speech was legally unhindered, that is, free. The consequences of the speech are, however, borne by the speaker. If you do redefine freedom of speech thus, then what place in the world doesn't have it? Even in North Korea you can speak freely for a short while before you have to bear the consequences.

Exactly. Did the Wuhan doctors sounding the alarm about a new virus, without “evidence” have freedom of speech?

The CCP tried to suppress them for “inciting a panic” until it became obvious they couldn’t cover it up any longer

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

#625

Post by pdonis » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 2:00 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #568

pdonis wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its distressing because of the harassment it engenders and includes the fear of future harassment, as much as anything else. If you prefer a legal system where the jury is not allowed to weigh such factors and damage awards are determined in accordance with some statutory formula, that's your prerogative. Don't do any business in Connecticut, I guess.

This doesn't answer my question. "Harassment is distressing" might be your opinion, but I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking if you can point me at anything in the plaintiffs' claims or their lawyer's arguments or the court ruling that based any part of the damage award on harassment by people who had nothing to do with Jones but just heard what he said, instead of just on defamation by Jones and his associates and employees.

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

#626

Post by thwayunion » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

sdtriton wrote: post #228

The people who released opioids upon the American public didn't get fines like this. Insane

The fines for opioid producers and various enablers are in excess of $26 billion and still counting. Not nearly enough, mind you, but still -- much higher than the amount being discussed here.

There are also two important distinctions:

1. The American court system is inherently adversarial and judges/juries have a lot of discretion. The strategy employed by the defense does matter and a bad strategy can be expensive. If the lawyers in the opioid cases had employed the strategies used by Jones and his lawyers -- instead of working hard to get a settlement -- their damages would likely have been an order of magnitude larger than $26B & the executives behaving like Jones would be in jail. Jones, in many ways, has only himself to blame for the size of these damages. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

2. The $26B and counting will actually be paid. I would guess that Jones will only ever end up paying a small faction of the <$1B.

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

#627

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #616

dredmorbius wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would take a different tack on this: the speech was legally unhindered, that is, free. The consequences of the speech are, however, borne by the speaker. I'm not sure this covers all cases of consequential burdening, but it does seem to cover many of them. A future prohibition on speech, gag order, banning from online or broadcast services, etc., might be a harder case to make, though these could still be seen as s…

> I would take a different tack on this: the speech was legally unhindered, that is, free. The consequences of the speech are, however, borne by the speaker. If you do redefine freedom of speech thus, then what place in the world doesn't have it? Even in North Korea you can speak freely for a short while before you have to bear the consequences.

Prior restraint and criminal punishment would seem to be two fairly obvious standards. Neither apply in this case.

Freedom of speech is never an absolute, it had a long history of far lower significance in the United States prior to the 1950s, and has a long an complex history.

I'm not a legal scholar, I'm still researching the background and history myself. Two resources of possible interest and use to yourself and others:

Jacob Mchangama's Clear and Present Danger podcast, 40 episodes plus several special installments on the history of free expression. The creator tends rather more libertarian than I, though he's not an absolutist. That said, there's reasonably little bias I'd noted in the overall presentation, which is nuanced.

http://www.freespeechhistory.com/>

On texts ... there's a whole heck of a lot. I've not read the Very Short Introduction title yet, but have added it to my own reading mountain/asteroid:

https://www.worldcat.org/title/244062809>

http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8647BBCBFB1AADAC2A4C98ED...>

Looking that up just now, the author, Nigel Warburton, is known to me from other books on philosophy which were good.

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

#628

Post by zaebal » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 2:06 AM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #380

toss1 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may not pay that amount, but he will spend the rest of his life bankrupt or spending most of his energy avoiding judgement, which is a not unreasonable fate for people who make a living lying, cheating, and stealing.

Defense of Alex Jones here, generally in the form of "it was just speech, it was just one falsehood, goodbye free speech, if I say just one wrong thing..." etc. speaks of a particular trait: Context-free pedantry. These people imagine themselves practicing their context-free pedantry in the workplace and saying something like "Go to Massachusetts for your abortion" or something analogous regarding race, disability, s…

I've never heard of anyone who went on trial because of the violence against the families. All I hear is people keep making those allegations. Nothing more than that.

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

#629

Post by dukeofdoom » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 2:12 AM UTC

warbeforepeace wrote: post #482

darth_avocado wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First amendment isn’t under attack. Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. Ge attacked people, they responded back. Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander.

Alex has even recently sued someone for defamation over the child porn allegations that were made against him.

Was he awarded billions? That's a very damaging allegation. Considering he's not in jail, he must have been innocent.

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

#630

Post by derac » Thu, Oct 13, 2022, 2:12 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #551

ncallaway wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't an action brought by the government. He wasn't sued by the SEC, the FTC, or the FCC. He was sued by the parents that he defamed repeatedly over years.

That makes it even worse. Defraud or harm the entire country and you pay less than defaming a handful of people. He deserves to pay them for causing them trouble for his own gain, but if this isn't a political example I don't know what is.

The judgement was decided by jury...