5 ms·

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, suppresse

by 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.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Do you believe there is any kind of speech that is appropriate to have consequences for, or is there literally no line that could be crossed in your world view?
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Now apply this same standard to Jones' communications. How are they not extrinsically equivalent to harassment, for identical reasons?
  - budder 4y ago
    Exactly. The state doesn’t need to directly destroy you financially like they do in China. They just have a legal framework that allows lawyers to do it for them. And we think we have so much more freedom in the west.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      The state did not. The fine was decided by a jury. I have a very strong suspicion that if I started exercising my 'freedoms' in a harassing manner against you personally then suddenly your views would be very different.
saltminer 4y ago
> suppressing free speech is acceptable in this instance Libel, slander, and defamation are not free speech. You do not have the right to repeatedly, knowingly, lie about someone else, especially when said lies ruin peoples' lives. > billion dollar fine for some off-hand nutso claim It wasn't a claim, he asserted it as fact, and it wasn't just once, he did this up until he got sued, and even made up conspiracies about the trials as they were happening. > (that he subsequently recanted!) If Jones truly did believe he was correct about Sandy Hook being fake, the moment he found out he was wrong, he should have delivered a formal apology and begged his audience to stop harassing the families of the victims. He should have publicly rebuked people like Wolfgang Halbig and any callers who talked about the "Sandy Hook hoax" and chastised the harassers. But he never did that. Instead it's "I already said I was sorry, I might have been wrong but I'm right like 95+% of the time, why are people so angry at me? It's all part of a plot by the globalists to shut us down, buy my iodine." > a very unpromising barometer for the health of free speech in our country So "free speech" is when someone with a significant media presence is able to knowingly spread lies about you that lead to over a decade of stalking and harassment with no recourse? If you're an American, you might want to consult a lawyer on that. Our civil liberties have been heavily curtailed over the years, but this verdict isn't threatening anyone's rights.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  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 sanctions on behaviour rather than content. I'm not defending Jones at all here, his penalties are exceedingly well deserved and have been far too delayed.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    > 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.
MisterBastahrd 4y ago
His speech isn't being suppressed. The government didn't arrest him. He's being sued for damages he caused to the families of the victims he lied about. That's as American as it gets.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >His speech isn't being suppressed. The government didn't arrest him. He's being sued for damages he caused to the families of the victims he lied about. That's as American as it gets. I'd add that he is still free to continue lying forever. No one is stopping him from doing so.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    No one is stopping him from doing so. That ... may remain to be seen. Though it does seem to presently be the case.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >>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 whatever he feels like saying. If he defames someone (in the case we're discussing here, the families of children killed in Newtown, CT in 2012), they are also free (as they did) to sue him for such defamation. What, exactly, do you see changing with respect to the current status quo? What legal basis would you base such changes on? In preparing this reply, I noted this comment[0] of yours which reads, in part: 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 sanctions on behaviour rather than content. I am unclear as to how any of that could happen under US civil law. There certainly are examples of such orders in criminal cases, but very different rules/laws/regimes apply between the two. Unless Jones is criminally charged, I don't see how any of that could happen in a civil legal proceeding in the US. Are you taking the idea that "speech has consequences" to its logical extreme and hypothesizing that private actors may curtail Jones' access to media? I'd say that doesn't stop him from pontificating about anything on a bar stool (unless the bar owners don't like it and throw him out) or on his own private property. Or are you hypothesizing that laws will change and his defamation activity will be criminalized? If I misunderstand your point (always a possibility), my apologies. I'd just like to understand the mechanism(s) you're alluding to that could result in someone "stopping him from doing so[1]". N.B.: I'll say it again: IANAL. Also, I find Jones' behavior reprehensible and hope he ends up destitute and living in a cardboard box under a highway overpass. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33185391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33185391 [1] "doing so" is, of course, referring to him spewing the slanderous bile he's been vomiting up for a decade.
cyral 4y ago
"some off-hand nutso claim (that he subsequently recanted!)" You know this isn't even close to the truth.
mikkergp 4y ago
I’m trying to find a source but I’m pretty sure this wasn’t an off-hand nurse claim, he talked about it for years.

by wyager 4y ago

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.
- lovich 4y ago
  Do you believe there is any kind of speech that is appropriate to have consequences for, or is there literally no line that could be crossed in your world view?
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Now apply this same standard to Jones' communications. How are they not extrinsically equivalent to harassment, for identical reasons?
- budder 4y ago
  Exactly. The state doesn’t need to directly destroy you financially like they do in China. They just have a legal framework that allows lawyers to do it for them. And we think we have so much more freedom in the west.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    The state did not. The fine was decided by a jury. I have a very strong suspicion that if I started exercising my 'freedoms' in a harassing manner against you personally then suddenly your views would be very different.

saltminer 4y ago

> suppressing free speech is acceptable in this instance Libel, slander, and defamation are not free speech. You do not have the right to repeatedly, knowingly, lie about someone else, especially when said lies ruin peoples' lives. > billion dollar fine for some off-hand nutso claim It wasn't a claim, he asserted it as fact, and it wasn't just once, he did this up until he got sued, and even made up conspiracies about the trials as they were happening. > (that he subsequently recanted!) If Jones truly did believe he was correct about Sandy Hook being fake, the moment he found out he was wrong, he should have delivered a formal apology and begged his audience to stop harassing the families of the victims. He should have publicly rebuked people like Wolfgang Halbig and any callers who talked about the "Sandy Hook hoax" and chastised the harassers. But he never did that. Instead it's "I already said I was sorry, I might have been wrong but I'm right like 95+% of the time, why are people so angry at me? It's all part of a plot by the globalists to shut us down, buy my iodine." > a very unpromising barometer for the health of free speech in our country So "free speech" is when someone with a significant media presence is able to knowingly spread lies about you that lead to over a decade of stalking and harassment with no recourse? If you're an American, you might want to consult a lawyer on that. Our civil liberties have been heavily curtailed over the years, but this verdict isn't threatening anyone's rights.

dredmorbius 4y ago
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 sanctions on behaviour rather than content. I'm not defending Jones at all here, his penalties are exceedingly well deserved and have been far too delayed.
- int_19h 4y ago
  > 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.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

His speech isn't being suppressed. The government didn't arrest him. He's being sued for damages he caused to the families of the victims he lied about. That's as American as it gets.

nobody9999 4y ago
>His speech isn't being suppressed. The government didn't arrest him. He's being sued for damages he caused to the families of the victims he lied about. That's as American as it gets. I'd add that he is still free to continue lying forever. No one is stopping him from doing so.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  No one is stopping him from doing so. That ... may remain to be seen. Though it does seem to presently be the case.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >>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 whatever he feels like saying. If he defames someone (in the case we're discussing here, the families of children killed in Newtown, CT in 2012), they are also free (as they did) to sue him for such defamation. What, exactly, do you see changing with respect to the current status quo? What legal basis would you base such changes on? In preparing this reply, I noted this comment[0] of yours which reads, in part: 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 sanctions on behaviour rather than content. I am unclear as to how any of that could happen under US civil law. There certainly are examples of such orders in criminal cases, but very different rules/laws/regimes apply between the two. Unless Jones is criminally charged, I don't see how any of that could happen in a civil legal proceeding in the US. Are you taking the idea that "speech has consequences" to its logical extreme and hypothesizing that private actors may curtail Jones' access to media? I'd say that doesn't stop him from pontificating about anything on a bar stool (unless the bar owners don't like it and throw him out) or on his own private property. Or are you hypothesizing that laws will change and his defamation activity will be criminalized? If I misunderstand your point (always a possibility), my apologies. I'd just like to understand the mechanism(s) you're alluding to that could result in someone "stopping him from doing so[1]". N.B.: I'll say it again: IANAL. Also, I find Jones' behavior reprehensible and hope he ends up destitute and living in a cardboard box under a highway overpass. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33185391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33185391 [1] "doing so" is, of course, referring to him spewing the slanderous bile he's been vomiting up for a decade.

cyral 4y ago

"some off-hand nutso claim (that he subsequently recanted!)" You know this isn't even close to the truth.

mikkergp 4y ago

I’m trying to find a source but I’m pretty sure this wasn’t an off-hand nurse claim, he talked about it for years.