3 ms·

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.

by 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.
rvz 4y ago
> 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. I just searched for anyone here mentioning about the establishment, mainstream media, politician(s) (including a democrat presidential candidate at the time) posting libellous remarks about Kyle Rittenhouse without evidence, even before the trial and was afterwards acquitted and of all comments, only yours came up highlighting this. Interesting isn't it how everyone mysteriously and instantly forgotten about that since now Alex Jones is the villain of the week? > 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? You are not mis-understanding anything. The hypocrisy of the mainstream media around defamation of Rittenhouse shows that once they believe they can get away with it, they will do it again and again to anyone else. They are looking for villains to make stories out of others and will spread those lies or defamation for profit. In general, No-one should be able to get away with that without paying fines or damages for defamation. For smaller media companies like Jones's Infowars was sued for this and his response to Sandy Hook was indefensible to begin with so he should just pay the fine and it should also apply even to mainstream media who should not get away with their unfounded libellous nonsense towards Rittenhouse. I'd expect him to be filing defamation cases against them.

by kypro 4y ago

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.

rvz 4y ago

> 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. I just searched for anyone here mentioning about the establishment, mainstream media, politician(s) (including a democrat presidential candidate at the time) posting libellous remarks about Kyle Rittenhouse without evidence, even before the trial and was afterwards acquitted and of all comments, only yours came up highlighting this. Interesting isn't it how everyone mysteriously and instantly forgotten about that since now Alex Jones is the villain of the week? > 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? You are not mis-understanding anything. The hypocrisy of the mainstream media around defamation of Rittenhouse shows that once they believe they can get away with it, they will do it again and again to anyone else. They are looking for villains to make stories out of others and will spread those lies or defamation for profit. In general, No-one should be able to get away with that without paying fines or damages for defamation. For smaller media companies like Jones's Infowars was sued for this and his response to Sandy Hook was indefensible to begin with so he should just pay the fine and it should also apply even to mainstream media who should not get away with their unfounded libellous nonsense towards Rittenhouse. I'd expect him to be filing defamation cases against them.