3 ms·

> Defamation is inherently inciteful. That might be your personal opinion, but it's not the law. If nutjob A makes a defamatory statement about you, but doesn'

by pdonis 4y ago

> Defamation is inherently inciteful. That might be your personal opinion, but it's not the law. If nutjob A makes a defamatory statement about you, but doesn't tell anyone to do anything, and then nutjob B harasses you after hearing what nutjob A said, nutjob B is the one who is legally responsible for the harassment. Nutjob A is responsible for the defamation, but not for what other nutjobs might decide to do. Now if nutjob A explicitly said things along the lines of "you should go after this person", instead of just making defamatory false factual claims about them, that would be different. But I have not seen any claims by the plaintiffs that Jones said anything like that. They're just saying he made defamatory false statements. > If an outcome is statistically predictable there doesn't have to be a direct nexxus, a proximate one is sufficient. This legal theory is a recipe for disaster. There's a reason why the law requires direct evidence for things like this.

anigbrowl 4y ago
The law leaves room for the jury to form such moral determinations on their own, and in this case they have done so. I disagree that this is in any way disastrous.
- pdonis 4y ago
  Where have they done so in this case? As far as I can tell, the plaintiffs didn't even allege damages from harassment in this case. They alleged damages from emotional distress due to the defamation.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Its distressing because of the harassment it engenders and includes the fear of future harassment, as much as anything else. If you prefer a legal system where the jury is not allowed to weigh such factors and damage awards are determined in accordance with some statutory formula, that's your prerogative. Don't do any business in Connecticut, I guess.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      This doesn't answer my question. "Harassment is distressing" might be your opinion, but I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking if you can point me at anything in the plaintiffs' claims or their lawyer's arguments or the court ruling that based any part of the damage award on harassment by people who had nothing to do with Jones but just heard what he said, instead of just on defamation by Jones and his associates and employees.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        How about you look up the case and read the complaint for yourself, then you can express your opinion on how it's deficient. I don't know how the jurors parsed the evidence and haven't followed the trial so closely that I want to restate the plaintiffs' arguments.
        pdonis 4y ago
        > How about you look up the case and read the complaint for yourself I have, and I didn't see anything about claiming damages based on harassment. > then you can express your opinion on how it's deficient I haven't said anything was deficient.
ncallaway 4y ago
> If nutjob A makes a defamatory statement about you, but doesn't tell anyone to do anything, and then nutjob B harasses you after hearing what nutjob A said, nutjob B is the one who is legally responsible for the harassment. Nutjob A is responsible for the defamation, but not for what other nutjobs might decide to do. Courts and jurors are completely fine with finding that the behavior of nutjob B (and C and D and E and F) that are predictable from the defamation are part of the damages associated with the defamation. So, yes, nutjob A _does_ have legal liability for the damages caused by nutjobs B and C and D and E and F that are a predictable consequence of the defamation. The law does not require "direct evidence" of the connection to every instance of harassment. It requires enough evidence that a jury can decide a "but for" causation is more likely than not. Jurors are perfectly capable of making deductions and inferences such as "person A with a massive platform lied repeatedly for years", and then "hundreds of nutjobs harassed plaintiffs based on the same lies", connecting those two facts, and deciding that it's more likely than not that the nutjobs wouldn't have harassed the person if not for person A's lies.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Courts and jurors are completely fine with finding that the behavior of nutjob B (and C and D and E and F) that are predictable from the defamation are part of the damages associated with the defamation. Do you have any actual cases where that was the ruling?
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    I mean, it's basically the very core of the typical harms that arise from defamation. Almost always the economic harms that arise from defamation are the result of third parties responding to the defamatory content. If you couldn't incorporate the actions of third parties into the calculation of economic harm, then there would almost never be economic harm from defamation. As for specific court cases, take a look at Gibson Bros., Inc v. Oberlin College. A jury awarded Gibson's Bakery $11M in compensatory damages (and another $33M in economic damages). Of the compensatory damages, Gibson had argued that, among other things Oberlin college should be responsible for the damages arising from: "They blamed Oberlin for repeated vandalism and property damage and for Grandpa Gibson breaking his back while investigating the source of someone pounding on his apartment door in the middle of the night" https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-Ohio-1079.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-O... Two other examples, of course, would be the recent Alex Jones cases in TX and CT where the same reasoning also let to economic damage awards...
warbeforepeace 4y ago
Well he did also send one of his own employees to fuck with the family too. Dan Bidonde (probably spelled that wrong).
- pdonis 4y ago
  If it's his own employee, then it does come within the plaintiffs' allegations (since they alleged conduct by associates and employees of Jones as well as Jones himself), but it also is different from an allegation of harassment by people not connected with Jones or his company, who harassed the plaintiffs solely on the basis of things they heard Jones say. AFAIK the plaintiffs made no allegations about the latter at all, nor was the latter considered at all by the court in awarding damages.

by pdonis 4y ago

anigbrowl 4y ago

The law leaves room for the jury to form such moral determinations on their own, and in this case they have done so. I disagree that this is in any way disastrous.

pdonis 4y ago
Where have they done so in this case? As far as I can tell, the plaintiffs didn't even allege damages from harassment in this case. They alleged damages from emotional distress due to the defamation.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Its distressing because of the harassment it engenders and includes the fear of future harassment, as much as anything else. If you prefer a legal system where the jury is not allowed to weigh such factors and damage awards are determined in accordance with some statutory formula, that's your prerogative. Don't do any business in Connecticut, I guess.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    This doesn't answer my question. "Harassment is distressing" might be your opinion, but I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking if you can point me at anything in the plaintiffs' claims or their lawyer's arguments or the court ruling that based any part of the damage award on harassment by people who had nothing to do with Jones but just heard what he said, instead of just on defamation by Jones and his associates and employees.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      How about you look up the case and read the complaint for yourself, then you can express your opinion on how it's deficient. I don't know how the jurors parsed the evidence and haven't followed the trial so closely that I want to restate the plaintiffs' arguments.
      - pdonis 4y ago
        > How about you look up the case and read the complaint for yourself I have, and I didn't see anything about claiming damages based on harassment. > then you can express your opinion on how it's deficient I haven't said anything was deficient.

ncallaway 4y ago

> If nutjob A makes a defamatory statement about you, but doesn't tell anyone to do anything, and then nutjob B harasses you after hearing what nutjob A said, nutjob B is the one who is legally responsible for the harassment. Nutjob A is responsible for the defamation, but not for what other nutjobs might decide to do. Courts and jurors are completely fine with finding that the behavior of nutjob B (and C and D and E and F) that are predictable from the defamation are part of the damages associated with the defamation. So, yes, nutjob A _does_ have legal liability for the damages caused by nutjobs B and C and D and E and F that are a predictable consequence of the defamation. The law does not require "direct evidence" of the connection to every instance of harassment. It requires enough evidence that a jury can decide a "but for" causation is more likely than not. Jurors are perfectly capable of making deductions and inferences such as "person A with a massive platform lied repeatedly for years", and then "hundreds of nutjobs harassed plaintiffs based on the same lies", connecting those two facts, and deciding that it's more likely than not that the nutjobs wouldn't have harassed the person if not for person A's lies.

pdonis 4y ago
> Courts and jurors are completely fine with finding that the behavior of nutjob B (and C and D and E and F) that are predictable from the defamation are part of the damages associated with the defamation. Do you have any actual cases where that was the ruling?
- ncallaway 4y ago
  I mean, it's basically the very core of the typical harms that arise from defamation. Almost always the economic harms that arise from defamation are the result of third parties responding to the defamatory content. If you couldn't incorporate the actions of third parties into the calculation of economic harm, then there would almost never be economic harm from defamation. As for specific court cases, take a look at Gibson Bros., Inc v. Oberlin College. A jury awarded Gibson's Bakery $11M in compensatory damages (and another $33M in economic damages). Of the compensatory damages, Gibson had argued that, among other things Oberlin college should be responsible for the damages arising from: "They blamed Oberlin for repeated vandalism and property damage and for Grandpa Gibson breaking his back while investigating the source of someone pounding on his apartment door in the middle of the night" https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-Ohio-1079.pdf https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-O... Two other examples, of course, would be the recent Alex Jones cases in TX and CT where the same reasoning also let to economic damage awards...

warbeforepeace 4y ago

Well he did also send one of his own employees to fuck with the family too. Dan Bidonde (probably spelled that wrong).

pdonis 4y ago
If it's his own employee, then it does come within the plaintiffs' allegations (since they alleged conduct by associates and employees of Jones as well as Jones himself), but it also is different from an allegation of harassment by people not connected with Jones or his company, who harassed the plaintiffs solely on the basis of things they heard Jones say. AFAIK the plaintiffs made no allegations about the latter at all, nor was the latter considered at all by the court in awarding damages.