3 ms·

I don't think holding a person accountable for another person's irrational behaviour is reasonable though. If you tell me "it's going to rain" and I take that a

by donatj 4y ago

I don't think holding a person accountable for another person's irrational behaviour is reasonable though. If you tell me "it's going to rain" and I take that as a call to attack people with umbrellas, is that your fault?

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
If I send someone to kill you would you consider me unaccountable?
- donatj 4y ago
  That entirely misses the point. He didn't send the people. They acted on their own based on bad information he fed them. No call to action.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
But that's not at all what happened. Jones lied in a deliberate attempt to provoke harassment of these poor people. If owned a radio show and I go on and said you were a child rapist and should be stopped by any means necessary would you believe me faultless if you got attacked?
- donatj 4y ago
  > a deliberate attempt to provoke harassment of these poor people That seems superbly unlikely. If that were true, what would he stand to gain from that? What did he have against these people? I can't imagine he was just sitting there chuckling maniacally "yes yes I'm going to hurt these people who just lost their children". That's an imagined cartoon
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Money? His audience eats that shit up. He may not have had anything personal against the victims, but he needs grist for the mill of the type of content he creates.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    You're right, he may not have done it deliberately for the harassment, but he clearly had no qualms about it and made no move to stop it when he knew it was happening. He deliberately lied, and deliberately spread false, vicious claims about the parents. He makes a living of spreading fabulous and wild lies designed to spread fear and anger. In this case, and in the context of all those other anger fueling claims, he lied and said that the shooting was a false flag, that no one died, and that the parents were crises actors who faked the death of their loved ones because the state was going to use it as an excuse for gun control, and he continued to claim it, even after the parents were harassed, even after they initially sued him, and even went so far as to make accusations about the parents and judge on TV during the trial. What do you believe his goal was? And do you believe those claims don't meet the requirement for defamation? Again I ask how you'd feel in my proposed scenario, if I accused you of being a child rapist on TV, even if I didn't say you needed to be stopped, but that you were raping children for satan. Would you think that's just fine because no one rational would believe it?
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    Have you listened to Alex Jones speak? I get that we should try to see the humanity in people and that 99.999% of people are complex and nuanced but some people really are sociopaths. Some people really are cartoons.
AlexandrB 4y ago
Seems like the kind of thing a jury of your peers could decide. Kind of like what happened in this case. It also bears mentioning that the gulf between "it's going to rain" and "the parents of murdered children are actually 'deep-state' actors aiding a conspiracy to take away your rights" is vast.
- donatj 4y ago
  Neither contains a call to action.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    I don't think that's a great standard. For example if I consistently call a group of people subhuman and vermin that should not exist I may not have a call to action but the ideology I'm promoting is pretty clear. It's not unreasonable to hold me accountable when a member of my audience decides to attack an individual from the group I'm dehumanizing. Nor is it unreasonable for a member of that group to sue me. And again, the grey areas here seem like the kind of thing that a jury is able to decide. Alex wasn't found guilty by executive order from the president.
    - donatj 4y ago
      I think it's entirely unreasonable. Having a horrible opinion is a million miles away from telling people to do horrible things. Prosecuting people for opinions is the literal opposite of what a liberal democracy should be doing.

by donatj 4y ago

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago

If I send someone to kill you would you consider me unaccountable?

donatj 4y ago
That entirely misses the point. He didn't send the people. They acted on their own based on bad information he fed them. No call to action.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

But that's not at all what happened. Jones lied in a deliberate attempt to provoke harassment of these poor people. If owned a radio show and I go on and said you were a child rapist and should be stopped by any means necessary would you believe me faultless if you got attacked?

donatj 4y ago
> a deliberate attempt to provoke harassment of these poor people That seems superbly unlikely. If that were true, what would he stand to gain from that? What did he have against these people? I can't imagine he was just sitting there chuckling maniacally "yes yes I'm going to hurt these people who just lost their children". That's an imagined cartoon
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Money? His audience eats that shit up. He may not have had anything personal against the victims, but he needs grist for the mill of the type of content he creates.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  You're right, he may not have done it deliberately for the harassment, but he clearly had no qualms about it and made no move to stop it when he knew it was happening. He deliberately lied, and deliberately spread false, vicious claims about the parents. He makes a living of spreading fabulous and wild lies designed to spread fear and anger. In this case, and in the context of all those other anger fueling claims, he lied and said that the shooting was a false flag, that no one died, and that the parents were crises actors who faked the death of their loved ones because the state was going to use it as an excuse for gun control, and he continued to claim it, even after the parents were harassed, even after they initially sued him, and even went so far as to make accusations about the parents and judge on TV during the trial. What do you believe his goal was? And do you believe those claims don't meet the requirement for defamation? Again I ask how you'd feel in my proposed scenario, if I accused you of being a child rapist on TV, even if I didn't say you needed to be stopped, but that you were raping children for satan. Would you think that's just fine because no one rational would believe it?
- mikkergp 4y ago
  Have you listened to Alex Jones speak? I get that we should try to see the humanity in people and that 99.999% of people are complex and nuanced but some people really are sociopaths. Some people really are cartoons.

AlexandrB 4y ago

Seems like the kind of thing a jury of your peers could decide. Kind of like what happened in this case. It also bears mentioning that the gulf between "it's going to rain" and "the parents of murdered children are actually 'deep-state' actors aiding a conspiracy to take away your rights" is vast.

donatj 4y ago
Neither contains a call to action.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I don't think that's a great standard. For example if I consistently call a group of people subhuman and vermin that should not exist I may not have a call to action but the ideology I'm promoting is pretty clear. It's not unreasonable to hold me accountable when a member of my audience decides to attack an individual from the group I'm dehumanizing. Nor is it unreasonable for a member of that group to sue me. And again, the grey areas here seem like the kind of thing that a jury is able to decide. Alex wasn't found guilty by executive order from the president.
  - donatj 4y ago
    I think it's entirely unreasonable. Having a horrible opinion is a million miles away from telling people to do horrible things. Prosecuting people for opinions is the literal opposite of what a liberal democracy should be doing.