7 ms·

Jones stated that the Sandy Hook victims were crisis actors. he knew that to be false. it was an egregious case of defamation. knowingly spreading lies that dam

Jones stated that the Sandy Hook victims were crisis actors. he knew that to be false. it was an egregious case of defamation. knowingly spreading lies that damage someone's reputation is called slander, and it's not protected by the first amendment. neither is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or committing perjury, or falsifying your income taxes.

donatj 4y ago
- lokar 4y ago
  We have a system for that. Juries decide.
  - donatj 4y ago
    Juries are not mind readers. At best you can get to roughly what a rational person would have thought given said data, Alex Jones is not rational. It is literally unknowable.
    - lokar 4y ago
      In the context of needed a specific outcome in finite time, a legal process can never be certain of anything. We depend on process like juries to come to a good enough conclusion.
      - donatj 4y ago
        That's where the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes in though, and I don't believe there was any way that was met here.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” describes the standard of proof for criminal conviction as a safeguard b/c of the special potential consequences (like execution, imprisonment, disenfranchisement, and lasting legal disabilities) associated with such conviction. It has no bearing on a civil defamation suit, where the general burden is merely “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e., given what evidence each side has presented, what the jury finds more likely to be true.)
    - Natsu 4y ago
      This is actually a legit distinction and a jury could base their decision on this. However, the matter is entirely up to the jury and in this case they decided they did know what he thought and there's not much that can be done about it. It could well be reduced on appeal and it's unlikely they can pay that much, however.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > That seems tenuous. I don't think anyone can prove what Alex Jones believed. “Prove” in this context means “convince a jury that it is more likely true than not”; legal proof is not logical/mathematical proof, and, among legal standards of proof, the main civil standard (“preponderance of the evidence”) is lower than the standard required for criminal conviction (“beyond a reasonable doubt”). Beliefs and other mental states are routinely proven in court under both the criminal and civil standards. The arguments that this is impossible rely on concepts of “proof” that are not applicable to the legal environment.
zackees 4y ago
lokar 4y ago
Also the jury could reasonably conclude that he made the false statements to enrich himself knowing it would damage others.
budder 4y ago
- criddell 4y ago
  Jones didn’t speculate, he asserted that the shooting was a hoax and the victims on tv were paid actors.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    Asserting one's opinion is speculating. Personally I don't see how you can say he knew it to be false given his reputation as a conspiracy theorist. You can't both think he is crazy and think that he knew it to be false, that would assume he is rational. Hanlon's razor and all that.
    - jacobolus 4y ago
      So in other words, only people with a reputation for integrity should have to abide by the law, and as long as someone is a known pathological liar, they should be allowed to defame and send armies of trolls to harass anyone they feel like, whenever and as often as they like?
      - hunterb123 4y ago
        That's a bad faith interpretation and nowhere near what I said. To prove that he slandered them you have to prove that he knew it was false. If someone truly believes what they are saying, it's not defamation. What I'm saying is his record and his attitude all indicated he truly believed it, imo. The same people calling him crazy / a conspiracy theorist are saying he did it with malice / intent. Those are contradicting beliefs.
        jacobolus 4y ago
        It is very clear that he doesn’t believe his own nonsense (did you follow the trial?). He’s not “crazy” in the sense that he does not comprehend reality, but rather in the sense that he is a psychopath who doesn’t have empathy for other humans and doesn’t have any respect for society and its basic norms and rules, including civil/criminal law. The dude figured out a way to personally profit off the murder of a bunch of 6-year-olds by calling them all actors and then mercilessly targeting their families for harassment. It was beyond malicious: one of the most heinously sadistic patterns of behavior in American history. Your defense of it is grotesque. With any luck, criminal charges will eventually catch up with him and he’ll spend many years in prison.
lurquer 4y ago
So their reputation was worth a billion? Wow. That’s quite a reputation.
- alvarezbjm-hn 4y ago
  Their reputation, their safety, and the emotional damage of attacking their loss. There is more to it, but that should be enough to reach 1B.
- M2Ys4U 4y ago
  They have been repeatedly and viciously harassed by those who believed Jones' lies. So, yeah, besmirching their reputation is worth a billion.
Natsu 4y ago
> knowingly spreading lies that damage someone's reputation is called slander, and it's not protected by the first amendment Only in spoken word is it slander. Written it'd be libel, whereas defamation covers both. The lies have to be about regarding factual matters, not just odious opinions. > neither is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, That's a bad example from an overturned case that created an overly broad standard, which is why you shouldn't use that as an example of something not protected: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
wyager 4y ago
You're making up a narrative for why suppressing free speech is acceptable in this instance, not discharging the notion that free speech was, in fact, suppressed. The fact that a conspiracy talk radio guy can get hit with a billion dollar fine for some off-hand nutso claim (that he subsequently recanted!) is a very unpromising barometer for the health of free speech in our country.
- neaden 4y ago
  It wasn't an off hand claim, it was something he extensively talked about for years.
- datalopers 4y ago
  The fact that you defend this type of measurably harmful rhetoric as "free speech" is beyond fucking disgusting.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Alex was free to say it and the people he defamed were free to sue him for saying it. Alex was free to hire competent legal counsel for the trial(s), and he hired a bunch of wacky, like-minded nincompoops instead. There were so many points in this saga where Alex could have made decisions that would have made the outcome less severe and he doubled down almost every time instead. Even as the last trial was wrapping up, he was going on air and defaming the judge in the case while calling one of the plaintiffs "slow" and a victim of manipulation[1]. There is such a thing as consequences for your actions. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-railed-against-sandy-193648724.html https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-railed-against-sandy-19364...
  - wyager 4y ago
    > There is such a thing as consequences for your actions. A system which produces effects extrinsically equivalent to direct proscriptions on free speech is not better than a system which explicitly proscribes some speech, and is arguably worse, because it tricks credulous people into thinking it's not as bad.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
budder 4y ago
Two main points: A) is it true? B) did it cause damages? A) after the amount of mind boggling conspiracies by the CIA NSA etc that were proven to be true, are we really going to make conspiracy theories illegal? (In this case I don’t think it’s true, but conspiracies do exist) B) how can you be held accountable for the actions of a mob? If I go crazy over your hacker news comment, should you be liable for inciting me?

donatj 4y ago

lokar 4y ago
We have a system for that. Juries decide.
- donatj 4y ago
  Juries are not mind readers. At best you can get to roughly what a rational person would have thought given said data, Alex Jones is not rational. It is literally unknowable.
  - lokar 4y ago
    In the context of needed a specific outcome in finite time, a legal process can never be certain of anything. We depend on process like juries to come to a good enough conclusion.
    - donatj 4y ago
      That's where the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes in though, and I don't believe there was any way that was met here.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” describes the standard of proof for criminal conviction as a safeguard b/c of the special potential consequences (like execution, imprisonment, disenfranchisement, and lasting legal disabilities) associated with such conviction. It has no bearing on a civil defamation suit, where the general burden is merely “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e., given what evidence each side has presented, what the jury finds more likely to be true.)
  - Natsu 4y ago
    This is actually a legit distinction and a jury could base their decision on this. However, the matter is entirely up to the jury and in this case they decided they did know what he thought and there's not much that can be done about it. It could well be reduced on appeal and it's unlikely they can pay that much, however.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> That seems tenuous. I don't think anyone can prove what Alex Jones believed. “Prove” in this context means “convince a jury that it is more likely true than not”; legal proof is not logical/mathematical proof, and, among legal standards of proof, the main civil standard (“preponderance of the evidence”) is lower than the standard required for criminal conviction (“beyond a reasonable doubt”). Beliefs and other mental states are routinely proven in court under both the criminal and civil standards. The arguments that this is impossible rely on concepts of “proof” that are not applicable to the legal environment.

zackees 4y ago

lokar 4y ago

Also the jury could reasonably conclude that he made the false statements to enrich himself knowing it would damage others.

budder 4y ago

criddell 4y ago
Jones didn’t speculate, he asserted that the shooting was a hoax and the victims on tv were paid actors.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  Asserting one's opinion is speculating. Personally I don't see how you can say he knew it to be false given his reputation as a conspiracy theorist. You can't both think he is crazy and think that he knew it to be false, that would assume he is rational. Hanlon's razor and all that.
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    So in other words, only people with a reputation for integrity should have to abide by the law, and as long as someone is a known pathological liar, they should be allowed to defame and send armies of trolls to harass anyone they feel like, whenever and as often as they like?
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      That's a bad faith interpretation and nowhere near what I said. To prove that he slandered them you have to prove that he knew it was false. If someone truly believes what they are saying, it's not defamation. What I'm saying is his record and his attitude all indicated he truly believed it, imo. The same people calling him crazy / a conspiracy theorist are saying he did it with malice / intent. Those are contradicting beliefs.
      - jacobolus 4y ago
        It is very clear that he doesn’t believe his own nonsense (did you follow the trial?). He’s not “crazy” in the sense that he does not comprehend reality, but rather in the sense that he is a psychopath who doesn’t have empathy for other humans and doesn’t have any respect for society and its basic norms and rules, including civil/criminal law. The dude figured out a way to personally profit off the murder of a bunch of 6-year-olds by calling them all actors and then mercilessly targeting their families for harassment. It was beyond malicious: one of the most heinously sadistic patterns of behavior in American history. Your defense of it is grotesque. With any luck, criminal charges will eventually catch up with him and he’ll spend many years in prison.

lurquer 4y ago

So their reputation was worth a billion? Wow. That’s quite a reputation.

alvarezbjm-hn 4y ago
Their reputation, their safety, and the emotional damage of attacking their loss. There is more to it, but that should be enough to reach 1B.
M2Ys4U 4y ago
They have been repeatedly and viciously harassed by those who believed Jones' lies. So, yeah, besmirching their reputation is worth a billion.

Natsu 4y ago

> knowingly spreading lies that damage someone's reputation is called slander, and it's not protected by the first amendment Only in spoken word is it slander. Written it'd be libel, whereas defamation covers both. The lies have to be about regarding factual matters, not just odious opinions. > neither is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, That's a bad example from an overturned case that created an overly broad standard, which is why you shouldn't use that as an example of something not protected: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

wyager 4y ago

You're making up a narrative for why suppressing free speech is acceptable in this instance, not discharging the notion that free speech was, in fact, suppressed. The fact that a conspiracy talk radio guy can get hit with a billion dollar fine for some off-hand nutso claim (that he subsequently recanted!) is a very unpromising barometer for the health of free speech in our country.

neaden 4y ago
It wasn't an off hand claim, it was something he extensively talked about for years.
datalopers 4y ago
The fact that you defend this type of measurably harmful rhetoric as "free speech" is beyond fucking disgusting.
AlexandrB 4y ago
Alex was free to say it and the people he defamed were free to sue him for saying it. Alex was free to hire competent legal counsel for the trial(s), and he hired a bunch of wacky, like-minded nincompoops instead. There were so many points in this saga where Alex could have made decisions that would have made the outcome less severe and he doubled down almost every time instead. Even as the last trial was wrapping up, he was going on air and defaming the judge in the case while calling one of the plaintiffs "slow" and a victim of manipulation[1]. There is such a thing as consequences for your actions. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-railed-against-sandy-193648724.html https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-railed-against-sandy-19364...
- wyager 4y ago
  > There is such a thing as consequences for your actions. A system which produces effects extrinsically equivalent to direct proscriptions on free speech is not better than a system which explicitly proscribes some speech, and is arguably worse, because it tricks credulous people into thinking it's not as bad.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

budder 4y ago

Two main points: A) is it true? B) did it cause damages? A) after the amount of mind boggling conspiracies by the CIA NSA etc that were proven to be true, are we really going to make conspiracy theories illegal? (In this case I don’t think it’s true, but conspiracies do exist) B) how can you be held accountable for the actions of a mob? If I go crazy over your hacker news comment, should you be liable for inciting me?