3 ms·

> People should be able to monetize lies. What? No. > And people should be able to say things about people or companies that might cause a crazy person to do

> People should be able to monetize lies. What? No. > And people should be able to say things about people or companies that might cause a crazy person to do something crazy. Yeah sure, but that's not the issue here. > If the parents of Sandy Hook were harassed then the issue here is surely the harassers? False dilemma. > The reason I worry about this is because if I believe someone is doing something evil does that mean I now have to stay silent in case some crazy person agrees with what I'm saying and does something crazy? AJ was accused of defamation. There is free speech protection for alleged defamatory statements. If statement regards a public figure, must be knowing or reckless with regard to truth. If not a public figure, must be at least negligent. > I suppose I don't really understand what was illegal here. He defamed the parents by claiming they were crisis actors in the Sandy hook shooting. While perhaps not criminal, it is damaging to their reputation and the victims are entitled to compensation. > I also think $50m is simply an insane amount of money. (1) Sure, the defense bar would love you and (2) that what the jury found and (3) those are punitive damages - i.e. damages set to punish the defamer. $50m in damages need not be done and can be multiples of actual without any constitutional issues. > What damages were actually done here? Alex Jones harmed the reputation of the parents and families related to the Sandy Hook shooting. > $50m for "emotional distress" is ridiculous in any context. This is more of punishment than compensation. Personally, I can get on board for especially bad actors, but to each their own. > To those who agree with this, could you help me understand what Alex Jones did here that's any difference to what someone like Joe Rogan does when he accuses individuals like Klaus Schwab of being involved in some global conspiracy? I mean to start, Klaus Schwab is a public figure so the bar for fault is higher. Also, Schwab might figure that it is not worth suing. > Is it simply that Joe Rogan tends to accuse people with some meaningful about of fame evil conspiracies? Idk I don't listen to Joe Rogan lol. > And if so, what level of fame does someone have to have before it's legal to say what you think about them in public? I mean if you are flat out lying and know you are lying - basically never. But if you are acting in good faith you have some protection. Just look up defamation on wikipedia - it's not rocket science.

unixbane 4y ago
>> People should be able to monetize lies. >What? No. He was obviously arguing from a standpoint that there shouldn't be a law against that specifically (there isn't), due to the implications such a law would have.
- kypro 4y ago
  Yes, but I think I probably could have been clearer. I don't think drug companies should be able to lie about the effectiveness of their products, for example. What I mean is that I don't think it should be illegal to say what you think about something as an individual, even if you're lying. If you're trying to sell a product then you I don't think you should be able to lie about what the product does, but you should be free to lie about how much you like it.
kypro 4y ago
Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm kind of shocked that so many people agree with this so it's really helpful to better understand peoples perspectives on this. I think part of the issue here is probably that we hold different views in regards to freedom of speech, and my mine are admittedly quite extreme. I disagree with libel laws, for example. I don't believe anyone has a right to a reputation, but I do think they have a right to speech. To address some of the points you made in regards to legality, I do understand that what Alex Jones did could be seen as illegal in the US, I think what I'm less clear on is where the lines are drawn and why what he done specifically is so bad that it warranted a $50m fine. Alex Jones, like or not, owns a media company and media companies often do lie about people. An example that comes to mind is that Kyle Rittenhouse had some very subjective and nasty things said about him by the media and by people with large followings online (perhaps deservingly, idk). Many media orgs implied, or outright said that he was a white supremacist. And I think we can probably agree that isn't good for Rittenhouse's reputation. So I what I don't understand how it's okay for a large authoritative media company like MSNBC to imply Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist without evidence, but Alex Jones with his relatively small following can't suggest Sandy Hook was a hoax? Am I miss-understanding something here, or were these media orgs also potentially breaking libel law?
- kentm 4y ago
  Did those media outlets state that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist as a factual statement? Admittedly I don’t follow the mainstream news outlets that much, but I never recall seeing that. Some opinion columnists might have wrote an opinion that he was a white supremacist, but that is protected speech. It’s also protected for news organizations to report when other notable people call Rittenhouse a white supremacist. They’d also be protected if they called him a white supremacist and they had evidence, like finding him writing the 14 words. But stating lies as facts when you either know their lies or have reason to suspect they’re lies and don’t check (reckless disregard for the truth) opens you up to defamation. Defamation is actually very hard to prove. News organizations have been hit for defamation before but they typically don’t report in a way that they make factual claims they can’t prove. That’s why you often see news call politicians lies “incorrect statements” rather than lies. Now, Jones elected to not comply with discovery and, as a result, defaulted on his lawsuit. Therefore we don’t know if he would have been found liable for defamation had he made a good faith effort to comply with the court. But we do know that the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories were lies, and we have good reason to believe Alex knew or suspected that based on his own statements and evidence produced during the depositions.

unixbane 4y ago

>> People should be able to monetize lies. >What? No. He was obviously arguing from a standpoint that there shouldn't be a law against that specifically (there isn't), due to the implications such a law would have.

kypro 4y ago
Yes, but I think I probably could have been clearer. I don't think drug companies should be able to lie about the effectiveness of their products, for example. What I mean is that I don't think it should be illegal to say what you think about something as an individual, even if you're lying. If you're trying to sell a product then you I don't think you should be able to lie about what the product does, but you should be free to lie about how much you like it.

kypro 4y ago

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm kind of shocked that so many people agree with this so it's really helpful to better understand peoples perspectives on this. I think part of the issue here is probably that we hold different views in regards to freedom of speech, and my mine are admittedly quite extreme. I disagree with libel laws, for example. I don't believe anyone has a right to a reputation, but I do think they have a right to speech. To address some of the points you made in regards to legality, I do understand that what Alex Jones did could be seen as illegal in the US, I think what I'm less clear on is where the lines are drawn and why what he done specifically is so bad that it warranted a $50m fine. Alex Jones, like or not, owns a media company and media companies often do lie about people. An example that comes to mind is that Kyle Rittenhouse had some very subjective and nasty things said about him by the media and by people with large followings online (perhaps deservingly, idk). Many media orgs implied, or outright said that he was a white supremacist. And I think we can probably agree that isn't good for Rittenhouse's reputation. So I what I don't understand how it's okay for a large authoritative media company like MSNBC to imply Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist without evidence, but Alex Jones with his relatively small following can't suggest Sandy Hook was a hoax? Am I miss-understanding something here, or were these media orgs also potentially breaking libel law?

kentm 4y ago
Did those media outlets state that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist as a factual statement? Admittedly I don’t follow the mainstream news outlets that much, but I never recall seeing that. Some opinion columnists might have wrote an opinion that he was a white supremacist, but that is protected speech. It’s also protected for news organizations to report when other notable people call Rittenhouse a white supremacist. They’d also be protected if they called him a white supremacist and they had evidence, like finding him writing the 14 words. But stating lies as facts when you either know their lies or have reason to suspect they’re lies and don’t check (reckless disregard for the truth) opens you up to defamation. Defamation is actually very hard to prove. News organizations have been hit for defamation before but they typically don’t report in a way that they make factual claims they can’t prove. That’s why you often see news call politicians lies “incorrect statements” rather than lies. Now, Jones elected to not comply with discovery and, as a result, defaulted on his lawsuit. Therefore we don’t know if he would have been found liable for defamation had he made a good faith effort to comply with the court. But we do know that the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories were lies, and we have good reason to believe Alex knew or suspected that based on his own statements and evidence produced during the depositions.