4 ms·

Yes indeed. They would have been very pleased with someone being charged 1 billion dollars for saying that a single event didn't happen. Clearly they would have

Yes indeed. They would have been very pleased with someone being charged 1 billion dollars for saying that a single event didn't happen. Clearly they would have agreed that Jones is liable for the actions of his viewers. It's all right there in the founding documents.

tptacek 4y ago
Defamation law at the time of the framers was even harsher than it is today. Truth wasn't a defense, and there was no "actual malice" standard. You were as likely to be arrested and imprisoned for these kinds of statements as you were to be sued for damages. The founders would have been fine with this outcome.
- saalweachter 4y ago
  The bigger debate would have been whether the matter should be pursued through the courts or if the defamer should be challenged to a duel.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Honestly not against restoration of the code duello.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      That's an extremely Jones-adjacent opinion to have.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        Feel free to support that claim in some way. Most of Jones' opinions seem to revolve around the idea that cabals of conspirators are trying to trick people into accepting exploitation or tyranny. I don't keep up with all his different ideas, though.
        tptacek 4y ago
        You're asking me to support the claim that Alex Jones would rather try controversies with violence than in a court of law?
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        You claimed my opinion was adjacent to his. I would not 'rather try controversies with violence than in court' but nor am I completely opposed to people mutually agreeing to settle them directly (with formalities) rather than submitting them to a third party. It seems like you dislike this idea, and are just associating with Jones who you also dislike. I don't see how you get from his conspiracy worldview to my opinion that an archaic social institution might be worth another look. I don't see duelling as incompatible with having a functional legal system.
        tptacek 4y ago
        I do in fact oppose the idea of settling controversies with violence.
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        That's fine, but it's not responsive to the question I asked you. What does this opinion of mine have to do with Alex Jones? If you're suggesting that all unusual ideas are somehow adjacent to each other, I don't think much of your categorical skills.
        tptacek 4y ago
        No, that's a particular unusual idea that I think Alex Jones would find very congenial, was the point I'm making. There are unusual ideas that he would find loathsome; that isn't one of them. I'm not saying anything more than that: it's a thread about Alex Jones, and you expressed a very Alex Jonesian unusual view. Seemed notable, that's all!
lovich 4y ago
Did Alex jones only say that an event didn’t happen? Or is that perhaps skipping over the numerous other defamatory claims he made? Regardless this was a self own business jones refusing to defend himself and not continue to perjure himself repeatedly. He likely could have made all the same claims and walked away with a settlement or judgment in the low seven figures if he merely stopped lieing when caught and told to stop.
qzw 4y ago
Oh no! The Founders would be displeased! I'm so tired of this kind of argument, as if we should forever substitute our own judgement with games of "what would The Founders want?" They were men, some were even great men, but men nonetheless. Don't worship them like gods. If there's something particularly great about the founders of the USA, it was that, one, they understood human imperfection, including their own, and two, they knew human societies change over time and so must their laws. They therefore built checks and balances into our system of government, and they put in mechanisms for change into the Constitution. So let's argue about the merits of laws or societal standards, but let's stop using the putative preferences of the founders like they mean anything. It's no better than when charlatans say "God wants this, God wants that" in order to legitimize their own opinions and actions.
- tptacek 4y ago
  The real issue here is that the founders would simply not agree with the parent comment. You don't have to reach the issue of whether the argument is persuasive; it's simply not accurate. It's worth digging into this stuff, because it's kind of fascinating. It's a reason to go look up what the largest fortunes were at the time of the founders, or what the major defamation cases where at the turn of the 19th century, or how defamation law differs now from the time of the framers (hint: it got a lot more favorable to defendants). If you use dumb-seeming arguments as an excuse to speed-research weird historical facts, these threads get a lot more fun, and also you tend to end up with more compelling arguments.

tptacek 4y ago

Defamation law at the time of the framers was even harsher than it is today. Truth wasn't a defense, and there was no "actual malice" standard. You were as likely to be arrested and imprisoned for these kinds of statements as you were to be sued for damages. The founders would have been fine with this outcome.

saalweachter 4y ago
The bigger debate would have been whether the matter should be pursued through the courts or if the defamer should be challenged to a duel.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Honestly not against restoration of the code duello.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    That's an extremely Jones-adjacent opinion to have.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Feel free to support that claim in some way. Most of Jones' opinions seem to revolve around the idea that cabals of conspirators are trying to trick people into accepting exploitation or tyranny. I don't keep up with all his different ideas, though.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        You're asking me to support the claim that Alex Jones would rather try controversies with violence than in a court of law?
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        You claimed my opinion was adjacent to his. I would not 'rather try controversies with violence than in court' but nor am I completely opposed to people mutually agreeing to settle them directly (with formalities) rather than submitting them to a third party. It seems like you dislike this idea, and are just associating with Jones who you also dislike. I don't see how you get from his conspiracy worldview to my opinion that an archaic social institution might be worth another look. I don't see duelling as incompatible with having a functional legal system.
        tptacek 4y ago
        I do in fact oppose the idea of settling controversies with violence.
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        That's fine, but it's not responsive to the question I asked you. What does this opinion of mine have to do with Alex Jones? If you're suggesting that all unusual ideas are somehow adjacent to each other, I don't think much of your categorical skills.
        tptacek 4y ago
        No, that's a particular unusual idea that I think Alex Jones would find very congenial, was the point I'm making. There are unusual ideas that he would find loathsome; that isn't one of them. I'm not saying anything more than that: it's a thread about Alex Jones, and you expressed a very Alex Jonesian unusual view. Seemed notable, that's all!

lovich 4y ago

Did Alex jones only say that an event didn’t happen? Or is that perhaps skipping over the numerous other defamatory claims he made? Regardless this was a self own business jones refusing to defend himself and not continue to perjure himself repeatedly. He likely could have made all the same claims and walked away with a settlement or judgment in the low seven figures if he merely stopped lieing when caught and told to stop.

qzw 4y ago

Oh no! The Founders would be displeased! I'm so tired of this kind of argument, as if we should forever substitute our own judgement with games of "what would The Founders want?" They were men, some were even great men, but men nonetheless. Don't worship them like gods. If there's something particularly great about the founders of the USA, it was that, one, they understood human imperfection, including their own, and two, they knew human societies change over time and so must their laws. They therefore built checks and balances into our system of government, and they put in mechanisms for change into the Constitution. So let's argue about the merits of laws or societal standards, but let's stop using the putative preferences of the founders like they mean anything. It's no better than when charlatans say "God wants this, God wants that" in order to legitimize their own opinions and actions.

tptacek 4y ago
The real issue here is that the founders would simply not agree with the parent comment. You don't have to reach the issue of whether the argument is persuasive; it's simply not accurate. It's worth digging into this stuff, because it's kind of fascinating. It's a reason to go look up what the largest fortunes were at the time of the founders, or what the major defamation cases where at the turn of the 19th century, or how defamation law differs now from the time of the framers (hint: it got a lot more favorable to defendants). If you use dumb-seeming arguments as an excuse to speed-research weird historical facts, these threads get a lot more fun, and also you tend to end up with more compelling arguments.