9 ms·

First amendment isn’t under attack. Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. Ge attacked people, they responded back. Defamation law has always existed and

First amendment isn’t under attack. Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. Ge attacked people, they responded back. Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander. But a $965 million dollar judgment for libel or slander would have to be justified by comparable damages. That isn't the case here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 4y ago
  Sure it is. The jury literally just found those damages. These aren't punitive damages, they're compensatory. Punitive damages are the next phase of the case.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    I accept that the jury labeled the amount as compensatory damage. But it is obviously the case that that amount of damage was not dealt. Nobody involved had a reputation that was worth $100 million dollars.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      That's not obvious to me at all. Can a 9-figure media and supplements company inflict 25-50 million dollars on an individual? Sure they can. Selling the memory of a parent's murdered child and defaming them to the point where they are followed into different states by lunatics threatening their lives seems to easily cross that threshold. How disruptive would it be to my life if that happened to me? Over how many years? It's a huge amount of baseline injury, and then it's multiplied by the demonstrable profits earned by Free Speech Systems at their expense. Remember, it's almost a billion dollars because twenty children were murdered at Sandy Hook, and Jones' company managed to target all of the parents. If only one parent had sued, we wouldn't be batting an eyelash at the resulting damages. But Jones built an immensely powerful media machine, and then aimed it very carefully at his own testicles. Play stupid games, &c &c.
      - scarab92 4y ago
        I don't see how a company can inflict $25 million in damages per person. Damages for wrongful death usually don't even go this high.
        tptacek 4y ago
        People seemed to have no problem with the idea that Oberlin could have inflicted $36MM against a family. I didn't either! That's how tort damages work.
        scarab92 4y ago
        The Oberlin case had damages of $25 million, not $36 million, and that was the combined award to number of individuals plus a company that suffered a significant loss of revenue. Apples vs Oranges.
        tptacek 4y ago
        I don't agree. But if you'd like another example: Hulk Hogan got $115MM personally from Gawker, over a sex tape.
        greyhair 4y ago
        If I could get $115M for a sex tape, I'd be making one every week.
        tejohnso 4y ago
        Apples & oranges again? Hogan is a public figure who might actually lose out on a hundred mil due to reputation damage. A average middle class USA family, not so much. Anyway if it isn't punitive shouldn't there be some kind of account for how the number was arrived at? I don't see it in the article.
        9935c101ab17a66 4y ago
        Well, to be frank, it doesn't matter. Some people probably think any kind of damages for defamation are ridiculous. Others probably think this wasn't enough. It doesn't matter though, because you weren't selected to serve on the jury at the trial. You didn't see the evidence, you didn't get to observe jones' conduct, you didn't sit through days and days of testimony about how horrible and traumatic it was for the families of sandy hook to lose their children and then be called 'crisis actors' by Alex Jones repeatedly. His followers were literally harassing the parents in public. These damages may be above average and the highest ever in a defamation trial, but Alex Jones really took being a defamatory piece of shit to a new level.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > reputation Very probably the matter is not with reputation. What seems to be more plausible instead is: -- the victims having had an angry mob risen against them (and of course in the context of having suffered a diremost loss); -- the responsible having financially exploited the situation.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > the responsible having financially exploited the situation. This has nothing to do with the lawsuit. It's not a defamation claim; it's not a damages claim. You'd have to make a claim for unjust enrichment.
        tptacek 4y ago
        You sound very sure of this, but I am less sure. Disgorgement is a remedy, in US law, for torts in general. Damages are especially constrained in defamation claims, because of the first amendment, but defamation is just one of five claims against Jones, all of which he was found guilty of --- intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, and, most notably, violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices act. I'm not saying I'm sure these numbers will hold up (punitive damages under CUTPA are uncapped, though!), but I think the story about how the jury could have reached these numbers is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be. In particular: (1) It's not just defamation. (2) You do not in fact need to make a "claim for unjust enrichment" to recover profits earned through an intentional tort.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > You do not in fact need to make a "claim for unjust enrichment" to recover profits earned through an intentional tort. I would need a lot more than your assertion to be convinced of this. Here's Ward Farnsworth introducing his book, Restitution: Civil Liability for Unjust Enrichment: > Restitution is the mirror image of tort law. You sue in tort to recover for losses that you have suffered. You bring a restitution claim to recover gains that another party has obtained. In some cases it makes no difference which claim you bring, because your losses and the other side's gains are the same. Or you might prefer a tort claim because your losses are bigger than the defendant's gains, as usually is true when you suffer damage in an accident. But sometimes going after the defendant's gains will allow a much bigger recovery, or is the plaintiff's only way to recover at all. > Restitution is the great overlooked topic in American private law. In this country most students can't learn about it even if they want to; few schools teach the subject. Students only hear about restitution as the name of an occasional remedy in contract cases. But restitution is the name of a claim, not just a remedy. So lawyers often overlook restitution and sometimes try to use tort and contract to solve problems that restitution law would handle better. Missing or misunderstanding the right to go after a defendant's gains can be a very expensive oversight. ( https://reason.com/volokh/2014/10/27/restitution-law-interesting-an/ https://reason.com/volokh/2014/10/27/restitution-law-interes... ) Here we see a brief mention of Jesse Ventura's novel (in 2014) legal strategy of including a claim for unjust enrichment in his defamation suit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/jesse-ventura-v-american-sniper-unjust-enrichment-as-a-remedy-in-defamation-cases/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... (From the piece: "The jury awarded plaintiff $500,000 for defamation, and $1,345,477.25 on the unjust enrichment theory.") Why would he do that, if it were just part of how all torts are handled? What would be unusual about it? (And why would Ward Farnsworth introduce the subject by pointing out that "tort claims and restitution claims are opposite things"?)
    - darth_avocado 4y ago
      It’s not about what the reputation was worth, it is about what he made off it. The point of the justice system is to set a precedent, if the damages are too low, you just set a precedent where lawsuits are just business expenses and you can still make money off these things.
  - bachmeier 4y ago
    > These aren't punitive damages I don't see anything indicating this in the linked article.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Punitive damages in Connecticut civil cases are awarded in a later phase of the case. The jury recommends that punitive damages be assessed, and the number is worked out later. These are compensatory damages.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  The beauty of the US court system is he has every right to challenge it if he feels it's not appropriate.
- bachmeier 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Again: these aren't punitive damages.
- polotics 4y ago
  Comparable damage? Can you imagine your young daughter one days goes to school, never comes back because she bled to death in a corridor there, and then for years you get attacked by strangers claiming you made it all up and are a fake? One thing I really don't understand about the US of A is, while it is abominously violent, still, a pork like Alex Jones hasn't been physically attacked by anyone. It's like there's a complete split in society somehow. In my books comparable damage would be everything and all money he owns, plus any he will, minus maybe $9 per day. Couldn't the jury have voted for such a verdict, why does it have to be an amount, why not an "everything"?
  - nazka 4y ago
    You forgot maybe the most horrible of all this. You create a website and through ads and sells you make a ton of money out of it.
  - voisin 4y ago
    Isn’t that what it will amount to? He’ll declare bankruptcy and everything he’s got will go to settling some fraction of these lawsuits.
    - nextaccountic 4y ago
      Now, suppose that he tries to hide some assets to not pay what he owes. In this case he can be on the hook even after bankruptcy
      - voisin 4y ago
        I think his greatest asset is his personality and following, and he’ll be able to monetize that post-bankruptcy. The longer he drags out the court cases, the longer he delays that, so hopefully he just gets on with him and pays out everything he has.
    - jacobolus 4y ago
      He was just on his live show telling viewers to send money without worry: nothing they sent now would ever go to these families because he is declaring bankruptcy. Whatever bankruptcy judge he ends up before might not be amused by such antics.
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  Are punitive damages not allowed in libel cases?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    They are, they're just usually handled in a separate phase. In CT, judges apparently work them out after a jury recommends that punitive damages get handed out; in TX, the jury deliberates twice, once for compensatory and once for punitive damages.
- kazinator 4y ago
  One issue is that the defendant not only inflicted damages, but ran a business which profited from the same activity.
warbeforepeace 4y ago
Alex has even recently sued someone for defamation over the child porn allegations that were made against him.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  Was he awarded billions? That's a very damaging allegation. Considering he's not in jail, he must have been innocent.
  - cykros 4y ago
    You can be acquitted without being innocent. See OJ.
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      So since OJ got off you assume everyone acquitted may still be guilty? That's a great system you got there.
      - taylodl 4y ago
        You might be forgetting OJ was found guilty in Civil Court. How can you be guilty in Civil Court and not guilty in Criminal Court? Easy. Two different criteria for guilt. In Criminal Court it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. In Civil Court it must be shown that it's more likely than not that you committed the crime. In the case of OJ what this means is it's more likely than not that he murdered his wife but it's not beyond reasonable doubt that he did so. OJ was acquitted of murder in Criminal Court and forced to pay his wife's family for damages in Civil Court since it's more likely than not that he murdered his wife. Whether you think this is a great system or not is subjective but that's how the system works.
        hunterb123 4y ago
        I'm aware of the civil trial, but it was even clear in the criminal trial he murdered his wife. Between the blood on everything he owned, the car chase, the domestic abuse calls etc. He was acquitted by the jury due to racial tensions. Certainly not something to apply to any other case, it was a special exception of injustice.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> First amendment isn’t under attack. True, but... > Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. The courts are part of the government, and Constitutional limits on government power apply to civil liability; the First Amendment, quite notably, restricts the conditions in which defamation liability can be applied.
- darth_avocado 4y ago
  > The courts are part of the government Right, but that is not how the law is applied. In a civil lawsuit, court or the government is not the plaintiff or the defendant, and therefore first amendment protections do not apply. There are first amendment protections when public officials are involved in the defamation suit. But beyond that, it is well established that first amendment does not protect this kind of speech.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Right, but that is not how the law is applied. In a civil lawsuit, court or the government is not the plaintiff or the defendant, and therefore first amendment protections do not apply. It absolutely is, which is why thr First Amendment limits the conditions in which civil defamation damages can be awarded, see, e.g., Times v. Sullivan. EDIT: In fact, Times v. Sullivan rejects this specific argument, saying: “Although this is a civil lawsuit between private parties, the Alabama courts have applied a state rule of law which petitioners claim to impose invalid restrictions on their constitutional freedoms of speech and press. It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action [...]. The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has in fact been exercised.” > There are first amendment protections when public officials are involved in the defamation suit. But beyond that, it is well established that first amendment does not protect this kind of speech. This is completely wrong. Times v. Sullivan, the landmark case applying the 1A to defamation, and subsequent cases elaborating the Constitutional limits of defamation liability established both basic 1A rules for all defamation cases, and additional rules for public figures (not just public officials, but also others who seek public attention), and matters of public concern. Among the rules applicable to all cases, not just public figures and public concern are: (1) Opinion is Constitutionally protected and cannot be defamation (as it could be in some jurisdictions before), (2) Falsity is required element of defamation and must be proved by the plaintiff, it cannot be presumed with the truth as a defense (as, again, it was in some jurisdictions) (3) Fault (at least simple negligence) is a Constitutionally-required required element; defamation cannot be strict liability (as, again, it was in some jurisdictions prior to the Constitutional rule being articulated by the Court),

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander. But a $965 million dollar judgment for libel or slander would have to be justified by comparable damages. That isn't the case here.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 4y ago
Sure it is. The jury literally just found those damages. These aren't punitive damages, they're compensatory. Punitive damages are the next phase of the case.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  I accept that the jury labeled the amount as compensatory damage. But it is obviously the case that that amount of damage was not dealt. Nobody involved had a reputation that was worth $100 million dollars.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    That's not obvious to me at all. Can a 9-figure media and supplements company inflict 25-50 million dollars on an individual? Sure they can. Selling the memory of a parent's murdered child and defaming them to the point where they are followed into different states by lunatics threatening their lives seems to easily cross that threshold. How disruptive would it be to my life if that happened to me? Over how many years? It's a huge amount of baseline injury, and then it's multiplied by the demonstrable profits earned by Free Speech Systems at their expense. Remember, it's almost a billion dollars because twenty children were murdered at Sandy Hook, and Jones' company managed to target all of the parents. If only one parent had sued, we wouldn't be batting an eyelash at the resulting damages. But Jones built an immensely powerful media machine, and then aimed it very carefully at his own testicles. Play stupid games, &c &c.
    - scarab92 4y ago
      I don't see how a company can inflict $25 million in damages per person. Damages for wrongful death usually don't even go this high.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        People seemed to have no problem with the idea that Oberlin could have inflicted $36MM against a family. I didn't either! That's how tort damages work.
        scarab92 4y ago
        The Oberlin case had damages of $25 million, not $36 million, and that was the combined award to number of individuals plus a company that suffered a significant loss of revenue. Apples vs Oranges.
        tptacek 4y ago
        I don't agree. But if you'd like another example: Hulk Hogan got $115MM personally from Gawker, over a sex tape.
        greyhair 4y ago
        If I could get $115M for a sex tape, I'd be making one every week.
        tejohnso 4y ago
        Apples & oranges again? Hogan is a public figure who might actually lose out on a hundred mil due to reputation damage. A average middle class USA family, not so much. Anyway if it isn't punitive shouldn't there be some kind of account for how the number was arrived at? I don't see it in the article.
      - 9935c101ab17a66 4y ago
        Well, to be frank, it doesn't matter. Some people probably think any kind of damages for defamation are ridiculous. Others probably think this wasn't enough. It doesn't matter though, because you weren't selected to serve on the jury at the trial. You didn't see the evidence, you didn't get to observe jones' conduct, you didn't sit through days and days of testimony about how horrible and traumatic it was for the families of sandy hook to lose their children and then be called 'crisis actors' by Alex Jones repeatedly. His followers were literally harassing the parents in public. These damages may be above average and the highest ever in a defamation trial, but Alex Jones really took being a defamatory piece of shit to a new level.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > reputation Very probably the matter is not with reputation. What seems to be more plausible instead is: -- the victims having had an angry mob risen against them (and of course in the context of having suffered a diremost loss); -- the responsible having financially exploited the situation.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > the responsible having financially exploited the situation. This has nothing to do with the lawsuit. It's not a defamation claim; it's not a damages claim. You'd have to make a claim for unjust enrichment.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        You sound very sure of this, but I am less sure. Disgorgement is a remedy, in US law, for torts in general. Damages are especially constrained in defamation claims, because of the first amendment, but defamation is just one of five claims against Jones, all of which he was found guilty of --- intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, and, most notably, violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices act. I'm not saying I'm sure these numbers will hold up (punitive damages under CUTPA are uncapped, though!), but I think the story about how the jury could have reached these numbers is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be. In particular: (1) It's not just defamation. (2) You do not in fact need to make a "claim for unjust enrichment" to recover profits earned through an intentional tort.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > You do not in fact need to make a "claim for unjust enrichment" to recover profits earned through an intentional tort. I would need a lot more than your assertion to be convinced of this. Here's Ward Farnsworth introducing his book, Restitution: Civil Liability for Unjust Enrichment: > Restitution is the mirror image of tort law. You sue in tort to recover for losses that you have suffered. You bring a restitution claim to recover gains that another party has obtained. In some cases it makes no difference which claim you bring, because your losses and the other side's gains are the same. Or you might prefer a tort claim because your losses are bigger than the defendant's gains, as usually is true when you suffer damage in an accident. But sometimes going after the defendant's gains will allow a much bigger recovery, or is the plaintiff's only way to recover at all. > Restitution is the great overlooked topic in American private law. In this country most students can't learn about it even if they want to; few schools teach the subject. Students only hear about restitution as the name of an occasional remedy in contract cases. But restitution is the name of a claim, not just a remedy. So lawyers often overlook restitution and sometimes try to use tort and contract to solve problems that restitution law would handle better. Missing or misunderstanding the right to go after a defendant's gains can be a very expensive oversight. ( https://reason.com/volokh/2014/10/27/restitution-law-interesting-an/ https://reason.com/volokh/2014/10/27/restitution-law-interes... ) Here we see a brief mention of Jesse Ventura's novel (in 2014) legal strategy of including a claim for unjust enrichment in his defamation suit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/jesse-ventura-v-american-sniper-unjust-enrichment-as-a-remedy-in-defamation-cases/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... (From the piece: "The jury awarded plaintiff $500,000 for defamation, and $1,345,477.25 on the unjust enrichment theory.") Why would he do that, if it were just part of how all torts are handled? What would be unusual about it? (And why would Ward Farnsworth introduce the subject by pointing out that "tort claims and restitution claims are opposite things"?)
  - darth_avocado 4y ago
    It’s not about what the reputation was worth, it is about what he made off it. The point of the justice system is to set a precedent, if the damages are too low, you just set a precedent where lawsuits are just business expenses and you can still make money off these things.
- bachmeier 4y ago
  > These aren't punitive damages I don't see anything indicating this in the linked article.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Punitive damages in Connecticut civil cases are awarded in a later phase of the case. The jury recommends that punitive damages be assessed, and the number is worked out later. These are compensatory damages.
phillipcarter 4y ago
The beauty of the US court system is he has every right to challenge it if he feels it's not appropriate.
bachmeier 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
- tptacek 4y ago
  Again: these aren't punitive damages.
polotics 4y ago
Comparable damage? Can you imagine your young daughter one days goes to school, never comes back because she bled to death in a corridor there, and then for years you get attacked by strangers claiming you made it all up and are a fake? One thing I really don't understand about the US of A is, while it is abominously violent, still, a pork like Alex Jones hasn't been physically attacked by anyone. It's like there's a complete split in society somehow. In my books comparable damage would be everything and all money he owns, plus any he will, minus maybe $9 per day. Couldn't the jury have voted for such a verdict, why does it have to be an amount, why not an "everything"?
- nazka 4y ago
  You forgot maybe the most horrible of all this. You create a website and through ads and sells you make a ton of money out of it.
- voisin 4y ago
  Isn’t that what it will amount to? He’ll declare bankruptcy and everything he’s got will go to settling some fraction of these lawsuits.
  - nextaccountic 4y ago
    Now, suppose that he tries to hide some assets to not pay what he owes. In this case he can be on the hook even after bankruptcy
    - voisin 4y ago
      I think his greatest asset is his personality and following, and he’ll be able to monetize that post-bankruptcy. The longer he drags out the court cases, the longer he delays that, so hopefully he just gets on with him and pays out everything he has.
  - jacobolus 4y ago
    He was just on his live show telling viewers to send money without worry: nothing they sent now would ever go to these families because he is declaring bankruptcy. Whatever bankruptcy judge he ends up before might not be amused by such antics.
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
Are punitive damages not allowed in libel cases?
- tptacek 4y ago
  They are, they're just usually handled in a separate phase. In CT, judges apparently work them out after a jury recommends that punitive damages get handed out; in TX, the jury deliberates twice, once for compensatory and once for punitive damages.
kazinator 4y ago
One issue is that the defendant not only inflicted damages, but ran a business which profited from the same activity.

warbeforepeace 4y ago

Alex has even recently sued someone for defamation over the child porn allegations that were made against him.

dukeofdoom 4y ago
Was he awarded billions? That's a very damaging allegation. Considering he's not in jail, he must have been innocent.
- cykros 4y ago
  You can be acquitted without being innocent. See OJ.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    So since OJ got off you assume everyone acquitted may still be guilty? That's a great system you got there.
    - taylodl 4y ago
      You might be forgetting OJ was found guilty in Civil Court. How can you be guilty in Civil Court and not guilty in Criminal Court? Easy. Two different criteria for guilt. In Criminal Court it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. In Civil Court it must be shown that it's more likely than not that you committed the crime. In the case of OJ what this means is it's more likely than not that he murdered his wife but it's not beyond reasonable doubt that he did so. OJ was acquitted of murder in Criminal Court and forced to pay his wife's family for damages in Civil Court since it's more likely than not that he murdered his wife. Whether you think this is a great system or not is subjective but that's how the system works.
      - hunterb123 4y ago
        I'm aware of the civil trial, but it was even clear in the criminal trial he murdered his wife. Between the blood on everything he owned, the car chase, the domestic abuse calls etc. He was acquitted by the jury due to racial tensions. Certainly not something to apply to any other case, it was a special exception of injustice.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> First amendment isn’t under attack. True, but... > Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. The courts are part of the government, and Constitutional limits on government power apply to civil liability; the First Amendment, quite notably, restricts the conditions in which defamation liability can be applied.

darth_avocado 4y ago
> The courts are part of the government Right, but that is not how the law is applied. In a civil lawsuit, court or the government is not the plaintiff or the defendant, and therefore first amendment protections do not apply. There are first amendment protections when public officials are involved in the defamation suit. But beyond that, it is well established that first amendment does not protect this kind of speech.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Right, but that is not how the law is applied. In a civil lawsuit, court or the government is not the plaintiff or the defendant, and therefore first amendment protections do not apply. It absolutely is, which is why thr First Amendment limits the conditions in which civil defamation damages can be awarded, see, e.g., Times v. Sullivan. EDIT: In fact, Times v. Sullivan rejects this specific argument, saying: “Although this is a civil lawsuit between private parties, the Alabama courts have applied a state rule of law which petitioners claim to impose invalid restrictions on their constitutional freedoms of speech and press. It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action [...]. The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has in fact been exercised.” > There are first amendment protections when public officials are involved in the defamation suit. But beyond that, it is well established that first amendment does not protect this kind of speech. This is completely wrong. Times v. Sullivan, the landmark case applying the 1A to defamation, and subsequent cases elaborating the Constitutional limits of defamation liability established both basic 1A rules for all defamation cases, and additional rules for public figures (not just public officials, but also others who seek public attention), and matters of public concern. Among the rules applicable to all cases, not just public figures and public concern are: (1) Opinion is Constitutionally protected and cannot be defamation (as it could be in some jurisdictions before), (2) Falsity is required element of defamation and must be proved by the plaintiff, it cannot be presumed with the truth as a defense (as, again, it was in some jurisdictions) (3) Fault (at least simple negligence) is a Constitutionally-required required element; defamation cannot be strict liability (as, again, it was in some jurisdictions prior to the Constitutional rule being articulated by the Court),