3 ms·
Kind of an aside, but this theatric style of writing is irritating to read on HN. It also confuses the point here: Jones's payment isn't about what "should" be
by carabiner 4y ago
Kind of an aside, but this theatric style of writing is irritating to read on HN. It also confuses the point here: Jones's payment isn't about what "should" be done based on personal morals, but what is dictated by law, and that is what GP is asking and the question you are ignoring.
- anigbrowl 4y agoLaw is a heuristic, justice still involves moral reasoning.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoWell, the question of law was already decided. And, legally, I'm pretty sure (but IANAL) that "deliberately lied", "repeatedly", "for profit", and "causing harm" were very relevant in deciding how much the fine should be. (Except, as entiex pointed out, that this was only compensatory, not punitive. Still... the harm went on and on and on for the families, as the lies went on and on and on. Is that allowed to be figured into the amount of compensatory damage? I think so.) My overall point: It wasn't just "saying something is a hoax". It was much more than that, and therefore the damage is much more, so the fine is much more, and justly so.