9 ms·

Yeah, this is especially an issue as certain forms of medical care gets politicized. If a doctor is obviously telling people that cigarettes are healthy and alc

Yeah, this is especially an issue as certain forms of medical care gets politicized. If a doctor is obviously telling people that cigarettes are healthy and alcohol abuse if the key to a long life then of course they probably should have their license revoked. If a doctor isn't certain of the literature or has moral objections to prescribing hormones to trans teenagers, well that one is up for debate. Similarly see Alex Jones, I disagree entirely with his politics and virtually everything he's ever said, but ultimately he was just fined approximately $1 billion USD for no more than speaking. Honestly seeing that happen to a private entity is more concerning than it happening to a demographic that already requires government approval to legally operate (medical professional, in this case).

lesuorac 4y ago
Alex Jones isn't the story you think it is. There are procedures to follow in a lawsuit such as discovery. If you intentionally do not follow them then you get in trouble. He may have been able to muster a "I only said things"/ free speech defense if he actually was trying to defend himself in court. Instead he didn't participate in the lawsuit and the other party that did is assumed to be correct. > [1] In both the Texas and Connecticut lawsuits, judges found the company liable for damages by default after Jones failed to cooperate with court rules on sharing evidence, including failing to turn over records that might have showed whether Infowars had profited from knowingly spreading misinformation about mass killings. > Because he was already found liable, Jones was barred from mentioning free speech rights and other topics during his testimony. [1]: https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-conspiracy-alex-jones-3f579380515fdd6eb59f5bf0e3e1c08f https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-cons...
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure if I see how this changes the fundamental nature of the lawsuit. "Spreading disinformation", whether you profit from it or not, is really just "Speaking your incorrect opinion out loud" in a more negative light. The basis of the lawsuit was "This man said things that made me upset". And yeah, they were rightfully upset, but it's something that I think any court in a country that values freedom would throw out in a heart beat.
  - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    Are you arguing against the entire legal concept of libel/defamation?
    - rayiner 4y ago
      When I was in law school, in the before times, libel and defamation were treated as a holdover from British common law. We learned how they had been winnowed down in the long “arc of justice,” starting with the Zenger trial in 1735. This trend of weakening libel and defamation laws, and any constraints on speech, was treated as uniformly positive.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Weakening... but not down to nothing. It's a lot harder to be found guilty of libel in the US than in the UK, and that's a good thing. You still can be, though, and that is also a good thing. ("Guilty" may be the wrong word, because it's not a criminal offense, but I'm not sure what the right one is here.)
        skissane 4y ago
        > ("Guilty" may be the wrong word, because it's not a criminal offense, but I'm not sure what the right one is here.) Defamation is a crime in many jurisdictions, including the US (not federally, but in over 20 states). Prosecutions and convictions are rare-but not non-existent. At least in the US, punishments are light (Wikipedia cites a study saying that the average custodial sentence for criminal libel in the US is just under six months). In free countries, prosecutions are generally reserved for particularly egregious cases (e.g. suppose A does some trivial thing to offend B, so as payback B plasters posters all over town accusing A of sex crimes, with the allegation being completely invented). Given this, the vast majority of defamation cases are civil not criminal.
      - pen2l 4y ago
        Do folks going through law school grasp how proliferation of libelous and defamatory statements happens now, without friction and at the speed of light? And the outsized impact it can have as compared to times ago? I would posit that libel and defamation should be even weightier issues than when British common law was around. We live in a time of companies dropping employees like stones seconds after they've gone viral in a poor light and loonies across the globe being galvanized into partaking in many shades of atrocities at the prodding of people who are learned in the ways of persuasive and effective oratory. The import of community (religious or merely cultural) was stronger back then, if someone was saying something shitty in earlier times they'd get a stern talking to by peers and community leaders. Things have changed, the power of those institutions has waned, tort law should thus come back stronger than ever to fill in the new gaps. I'm encouraged in seeing the turnout of Alex Jones ordeal and am anxiously waiting to see how Dominion vs Fox News unfolds. I am hoping that the aftermath of all this is that journalists/people-pretending-to-be-journalists/anyone-with-a-sizable-platform will be more careful about their reporting and statements. Of course this is all a murky area because many times it's hard to decide what is true and even harder to decide who gets to do the deciding but for getting the obvious things wrong and when signs of bad faith are clearly there the hammer should get dropped more often, I think such an environment would reduce chaos and extremism that we are seeing more and more of.
BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
The whole situation with Alex Jones has undermined the confidence I have with our court system and our government. Initially I thought there was some Mandela Effect going on because I could have sworn I remembered Alex Jones losing a Sandy Hook civil suit case multiple times before. Turns out, he’s being sued multiple times by different sets of parents and from what I understand, this latest case isn’t the last one. Regardless of how justified this feels, I nevertheless worry that using the civil court system in this manner sets a dangerous precedent. Firstly, because this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, there is no protection against double jeopardy. He can keep getting sued over and over for the same thing. Indeed, it really looks like these parents/their attorneys are out to destroy Alex Jones through lawsuit after lawsuit. Second, fining someone a billion dollars is just ludicrous. Yes, I know he is not worth that much and will ultimately end up paying far less. But the mere idea that such a large fine was issued undermines confidence that the restitution is in any way reasonable. Not just because the number is so detached from reality, but because such sums look like the financial equivalent of the death penalty. I am very worried about how civil suits can be used to go after people. To me at least, there need to be additional protections along the lines of what we have in the Eighth Amendment. What I’m seeing with these Sandy Hook cases feels like cruel and unusual punishment. Also keep in mind that you do not have a right to an attorney in suits like these and you have to pay out of pocket. It is not unreasonable to think lawfare like this will be used against other people in the future.
- rlpb 4y ago
  > Firstly, because this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, there is no protection against double jeopardy. He can keep getting sued over and over for the same thing. Not by the same people, though. If he damaged ten people, he might owe damages to each of those ten people. That doesn't sound like a problem to me. > Second, fining someone a billion dollars is just ludicrous. It seems like your argument is that the sum is simply too large, and that the specifics of the case are irrelevant. This seems dangerous to me. If someone does actually cause that amount of damage, why should they not be civilly liable? Surely it depends on the specifics of the case to determine if they did cause that much damage or not? Otherwise, does everyone just get to cause as much damage as they like but have a cap on what they are held responsible for? That doesn't seem right to me. If someone wants to get involved in a course of conduct which can cause terrible damages to others, then they should also be responsible for that.
jhauris 4y ago
I almost choked when I saw the headline with that judgement, and I haven't looked into it, but I suspect part of the reason it went so high is because he and his lawyers got caught withholding evidence in discovery and perjurying themselves. My optimistic belief is the high judgement was due to those extra factors, but maybe a lawyer can correct me.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You charge enough to discourage the behavior. Evidently, a smaller amount did not suffice.
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    Yes. Don't say things that the public disagrees with. Don't question what you're told. That's the lesson. Of course I think the Sandy Hook shooting was real, but if someone said it wasn't I'd just think they're an idiot - not a criminal that should be tried in any court.
    - jhauris 4y ago
      He wasn't tried as a criminal. This was a civil case between private individuals, under defamation laws. Withholding evidence and perjury, however, are actual crimes.
pjc50 4y ago
He wasn't fined, he was held civilly liable for damages. Perhaps the problem is that the fine accrues only to him and his production company; really there were a lot of people involved in spreading lies about Sandy Hook, and their production and distribution. Or that US lawsuits can produce spectacular punitive damages numbers on flimsy justification. But winning libel suits is really unusual in the US! Here's Sarah Palin losing a lawsuit this year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60396231 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60396231
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  It amount to the same thing when those "damages" are largely unquantifiable, and the quantifiable financial costs that were incurred by the families as a consequence (security, moving, etc) certainly couldn't have topped $10m, and were likely much, much less than that.

lesuorac 4y ago

Alex Jones isn't the story you think it is. There are procedures to follow in a lawsuit such as discovery. If you intentionally do not follow them then you get in trouble. He may have been able to muster a "I only said things"/ free speech defense if he actually was trying to defend himself in court. Instead he didn't participate in the lawsuit and the other party that did is assumed to be correct. > [1] In both the Texas and Connecticut lawsuits, judges found the company liable for damages by default after Jones failed to cooperate with court rules on sharing evidence, including failing to turn over records that might have showed whether Infowars had profited from knowingly spreading misinformation about mass killings. > Because he was already found liable, Jones was barred from mentioning free speech rights and other topics during his testimony. [1]: https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-conspiracy-alex-jones-3f579380515fdd6eb59f5bf0e3e1c08f https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-cons...

CodeSgt 4y ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure if I see how this changes the fundamental nature of the lawsuit. "Spreading disinformation", whether you profit from it or not, is really just "Speaking your incorrect opinion out loud" in a more negative light. The basis of the lawsuit was "This man said things that made me upset". And yeah, they were rightfully upset, but it's something that I think any court in a country that values freedom would throw out in a heart beat.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Are you arguing against the entire legal concept of libel/defamation?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    When I was in law school, in the before times, libel and defamation were treated as a holdover from British common law. We learned how they had been winnowed down in the long “arc of justice,” starting with the Zenger trial in 1735. This trend of weakening libel and defamation laws, and any constraints on speech, was treated as uniformly positive.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Weakening... but not down to nothing. It's a lot harder to be found guilty of libel in the US than in the UK, and that's a good thing. You still can be, though, and that is also a good thing. ("Guilty" may be the wrong word, because it's not a criminal offense, but I'm not sure what the right one is here.)
      - skissane 4y ago
        > ("Guilty" may be the wrong word, because it's not a criminal offense, but I'm not sure what the right one is here.) Defamation is a crime in many jurisdictions, including the US (not federally, but in over 20 states). Prosecutions and convictions are rare-but not non-existent. At least in the US, punishments are light (Wikipedia cites a study saying that the average custodial sentence for criminal libel in the US is just under six months). In free countries, prosecutions are generally reserved for particularly egregious cases (e.g. suppose A does some trivial thing to offend B, so as payback B plasters posters all over town accusing A of sex crimes, with the allegation being completely invented). Given this, the vast majority of defamation cases are civil not criminal.
    - pen2l 4y ago
      Do folks going through law school grasp how proliferation of libelous and defamatory statements happens now, without friction and at the speed of light? And the outsized impact it can have as compared to times ago? I would posit that libel and defamation should be even weightier issues than when British common law was around. We live in a time of companies dropping employees like stones seconds after they've gone viral in a poor light and loonies across the globe being galvanized into partaking in many shades of atrocities at the prodding of people who are learned in the ways of persuasive and effective oratory. The import of community (religious or merely cultural) was stronger back then, if someone was saying something shitty in earlier times they'd get a stern talking to by peers and community leaders. Things have changed, the power of those institutions has waned, tort law should thus come back stronger than ever to fill in the new gaps. I'm encouraged in seeing the turnout of Alex Jones ordeal and am anxiously waiting to see how Dominion vs Fox News unfolds. I am hoping that the aftermath of all this is that journalists/people-pretending-to-be-journalists/anyone-with-a-sizable-platform will be more careful about their reporting and statements. Of course this is all a murky area because many times it's hard to decide what is true and even harder to decide who gets to do the deciding but for getting the obvious things wrong and when signs of bad faith are clearly there the hammer should get dropped more often, I think such an environment would reduce chaos and extremism that we are seeing more and more of.

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago

The whole situation with Alex Jones has undermined the confidence I have with our court system and our government. Initially I thought there was some Mandela Effect going on because I could have sworn I remembered Alex Jones losing a Sandy Hook civil suit case multiple times before. Turns out, he’s being sued multiple times by different sets of parents and from what I understand, this latest case isn’t the last one. Regardless of how justified this feels, I nevertheless worry that using the civil court system in this manner sets a dangerous precedent. Firstly, because this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, there is no protection against double jeopardy. He can keep getting sued over and over for the same thing. Indeed, it really looks like these parents/their attorneys are out to destroy Alex Jones through lawsuit after lawsuit. Second, fining someone a billion dollars is just ludicrous. Yes, I know he is not worth that much and will ultimately end up paying far less. But the mere idea that such a large fine was issued undermines confidence that the restitution is in any way reasonable. Not just because the number is so detached from reality, but because such sums look like the financial equivalent of the death penalty. I am very worried about how civil suits can be used to go after people. To me at least, there need to be additional protections along the lines of what we have in the Eighth Amendment. What I’m seeing with these Sandy Hook cases feels like cruel and unusual punishment. Also keep in mind that you do not have a right to an attorney in suits like these and you have to pay out of pocket. It is not unreasonable to think lawfare like this will be used against other people in the future.

rlpb 4y ago
> Firstly, because this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, there is no protection against double jeopardy. He can keep getting sued over and over for the same thing. Not by the same people, though. If he damaged ten people, he might owe damages to each of those ten people. That doesn't sound like a problem to me. > Second, fining someone a billion dollars is just ludicrous. It seems like your argument is that the sum is simply too large, and that the specifics of the case are irrelevant. This seems dangerous to me. If someone does actually cause that amount of damage, why should they not be civilly liable? Surely it depends on the specifics of the case to determine if they did cause that much damage or not? Otherwise, does everyone just get to cause as much damage as they like but have a cap on what they are held responsible for? That doesn't seem right to me. If someone wants to get involved in a course of conduct which can cause terrible damages to others, then they should also be responsible for that.

jhauris 4y ago

I almost choked when I saw the headline with that judgement, and I haven't looked into it, but I suspect part of the reason it went so high is because he and his lawyers got caught withholding evidence in discovery and perjurying themselves. My optimistic belief is the high judgement was due to those extra factors, but maybe a lawyer can correct me.

ncmncm 4y ago
You charge enough to discourage the behavior. Evidently, a smaller amount did not suffice.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  Yes. Don't say things that the public disagrees with. Don't question what you're told. That's the lesson. Of course I think the Sandy Hook shooting was real, but if someone said it wasn't I'd just think they're an idiot - not a criminal that should be tried in any court.
  - jhauris 4y ago
    He wasn't tried as a criminal. This was a civil case between private individuals, under defamation laws. Withholding evidence and perjury, however, are actual crimes.

pjc50 4y ago

He wasn't fined, he was held civilly liable for damages. Perhaps the problem is that the fine accrues only to him and his production company; really there were a lot of people involved in spreading lies about Sandy Hook, and their production and distribution. Or that US lawsuits can produce spectacular punitive damages numbers on flimsy justification. But winning libel suits is really unusual in the US! Here's Sarah Palin losing a lawsuit this year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60396231 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60396231

CodeSgt 4y ago
It amount to the same thing when those "damages" are largely unquantifiable, and the quantifiable financial costs that were incurred by the families as a consequence (security, moving, etc) certainly couldn't have topped $10m, and were likely much, much less than that.