2 ms·

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 hir

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.

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.