5 ms·

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 fr

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.
root_axis 4y ago
If a famous person spreads lies about my murdered kids for profit which results in years of harassment and death threats it's not simply "spreading disinformation".
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  That's quite literally all that it is. Maybe you dont like it, I dont like it either, but Alex Jones's part in this was just speaking. The individuals doing the harassment and making death threats should of course be punished. But holding someone accountable for the actions of hundreds of people they've never met is absurd. Did Alex Jones encourage the harassment? Did he tell his followers to go send death threats? If he did, I've certainly not seen it. And if he did, it would be a slightly different story. But speaking your incorrect opinion should not make you liable for the actions of a few deranged individuals who choose to act on that information in a negative way.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    > [1] Defendants’ latest malicious statements were part of a continuous pattern of five years of intentional and reckless harassment accomplished through dozens of disturbing video broadcasts, a relentless stream of recklessly false articles published on InfoWars.com, harassing social media content, as well as the encouragement, aid, and financial support to third-parties in furthering this 23 harassment. The lawsuit literally claims they (Alex Jones) encouraged the harassment. [1]: https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-07-31-Ps-First-Amended-Petition.pdf https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-...
    - CodeSgt 4y ago
      The lawsuit can claims whatever it likes. I didn't say that the lawsuit never claimed it. I said that I haven't actually seen evidence of Alex Jones actively encouraging the harrasment. If you have that, please share.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
johnebgd 4y ago
Libel and defamation are forms of disinformation and have long been held to have civil repercussions. This case against Alex Jones is an extension of that IMHO.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but aren't those cases only held up and prosecuted when the victim(s) suffered real financial damages? E.g. lost their job, company went under, etc. I have yet to see what tangible damages Alex Jones caused the parents of the Sandy Hook incident. Emotional damages to be sure, but I don't believe fining someone because they hurt another's feelings is a good precedent to set.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Several of the parents had to move multiple times. Probably accepting less-favourable prices for their old home in the process, not to mention potential loss of career advancement opportunities when you're having to move house constantly. Other parents were compelled to hire full time security[2], which can't be cheap. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/parents-of-jewish-sandy-hook-victim-forced-to-move-7-times-due-to-harassment/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/parents-of-jewish-sandy-hook-v... [2] https://www.mediaite.com/news/alex-jones-false-claims-forced-grieving-sandy-hook-parents-to-hire-private-security-to-protect-against-his-followers/ https://www.mediaite.com/news/alex-jones-false-claims-forced...
lesuorac 4y ago
The basis of the lawsuit was defamation which is different than spreading disinformation. A lot of the legal documents can be found here [1] but I already know you aren't going to both yourself with the specifics of the case. The short version is, if somebody sues you, you need to go through the legal motions otherwise you lose by default and then their side is considered factual when determining damages regardless of if it actually was. My personal opinion is that he knew he'd lose under Texas's defamation law and so decided the optics looked better not to fight. [1]: https://infowarslawsuit.com/ https://infowarslawsuit.com/
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  I'm not sure why you feel the need to make negative assumptions about what I will/won't do. Doesn't seen like a character judgement is relevant to the discussion. I even said "maybe I'm missing something". For some reason, I had thought that there were certain lawsuits that wouldn't even be entertained by the court, regardless of whether the defendant chose to actually defend themselves. If that is the case, I think this should have been one of those. If that's not the case, I still don't see how a fine of $1b, or even $100k, could ever be considered reasonable in this situation. On the defamation part, someone else responded similar so I'll copy and paste my response here: > I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but aren't those cases only held up and prosecuted when the victim(s) suffered real financial damages? E.g. lost their job, company went under, etc. I have yet to see what tangible damages Alex Jones caused the parents of the Sandy Hook incident. Emotional damages to be sure, but I don't believe fining someone because they hurt another's feelings is a good precedent to set.
- Rapzid 4y ago
  It would be nice if people didn't barf their uninformed opinions all over HN with the excuse of, basically, "idk what I'm talking, come at me bro(with citations pls)". Then expect people to drip-feed them basic legal education. I guess doing some basic research on libel, defamation, punitive damages, and IDK.., the case at hand?, isn't contentious enough. Hard to get into an argument with Wikipedia.
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
pjc50 4y ago
Is your position basically that I should be able to post "CodeSgt is a sex offender and murderer" signs around your neighbourhood, and to your employer and social circle, and this is completely fine because it only has the effect of making you "upset"?

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.

root_axis 4y ago

If a famous person spreads lies about my murdered kids for profit which results in years of harassment and death threats it's not simply "spreading disinformation".

CodeSgt 4y ago
That's quite literally all that it is. Maybe you dont like it, I dont like it either, but Alex Jones's part in this was just speaking. The individuals doing the harassment and making death threats should of course be punished. But holding someone accountable for the actions of hundreds of people they've never met is absurd. Did Alex Jones encourage the harassment? Did he tell his followers to go send death threats? If he did, I've certainly not seen it. And if he did, it would be a slightly different story. But speaking your incorrect opinion should not make you liable for the actions of a few deranged individuals who choose to act on that information in a negative way.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > [1] Defendants’ latest malicious statements were part of a continuous pattern of five years of intentional and reckless harassment accomplished through dozens of disturbing video broadcasts, a relentless stream of recklessly false articles published on InfoWars.com, harassing social media content, as well as the encouragement, aid, and financial support to third-parties in furthering this 23 harassment. The lawsuit literally claims they (Alex Jones) encouraged the harassment. [1]: https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-07-31-Ps-First-Amended-Petition.pdf https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-...
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    The lawsuit can claims whatever it likes. I didn't say that the lawsuit never claimed it. I said that I haven't actually seen evidence of Alex Jones actively encouraging the harrasment. If you have that, please share.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago

johnebgd 4y ago

Libel and defamation are forms of disinformation and have long been held to have civil repercussions. This case against Alex Jones is an extension of that IMHO.

CodeSgt 4y ago
I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but aren't those cases only held up and prosecuted when the victim(s) suffered real financial damages? E.g. lost their job, company went under, etc. I have yet to see what tangible damages Alex Jones caused the parents of the Sandy Hook incident. Emotional damages to be sure, but I don't believe fining someone because they hurt another's feelings is a good precedent to set.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Several of the parents had to move multiple times. Probably accepting less-favourable prices for their old home in the process, not to mention potential loss of career advancement opportunities when you're having to move house constantly. Other parents were compelled to hire full time security[2], which can't be cheap. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/parents-of-jewish-sandy-hook-victim-forced-to-move-7-times-due-to-harassment/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/parents-of-jewish-sandy-hook-v... [2] https://www.mediaite.com/news/alex-jones-false-claims-forced-grieving-sandy-hook-parents-to-hire-private-security-to-protect-against-his-followers/ https://www.mediaite.com/news/alex-jones-false-claims-forced...

lesuorac 4y ago

The basis of the lawsuit was defamation which is different than spreading disinformation. A lot of the legal documents can be found here [1] but I already know you aren't going to both yourself with the specifics of the case. The short version is, if somebody sues you, you need to go through the legal motions otherwise you lose by default and then their side is considered factual when determining damages regardless of if it actually was. My personal opinion is that he knew he'd lose under Texas's defamation law and so decided the optics looked better not to fight. [1]: https://infowarslawsuit.com/ https://infowarslawsuit.com/

CodeSgt 4y ago
I'm not sure why you feel the need to make negative assumptions about what I will/won't do. Doesn't seen like a character judgement is relevant to the discussion. I even said "maybe I'm missing something". For some reason, I had thought that there were certain lawsuits that wouldn't even be entertained by the court, regardless of whether the defendant chose to actually defend themselves. If that is the case, I think this should have been one of those. If that's not the case, I still don't see how a fine of $1b, or even $100k, could ever be considered reasonable in this situation. On the defamation part, someone else responded similar so I'll copy and paste my response here: > I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but aren't those cases only held up and prosecuted when the victim(s) suffered real financial damages? E.g. lost their job, company went under, etc. I have yet to see what tangible damages Alex Jones caused the parents of the Sandy Hook incident. Emotional damages to be sure, but I don't believe fining someone because they hurt another's feelings is a good precedent to set.
Rapzid 4y ago
It would be nice if people didn't barf their uninformed opinions all over HN with the excuse of, basically, "idk what I'm talking, come at me bro(with citations pls)". Then expect people to drip-feed them basic legal education. I guess doing some basic research on libel, defamation, punitive damages, and IDK.., the case at hand?, isn't contentious enough. Hard to get into an argument with Wikipedia.
- CodeSgt 4y ago

pjc50 4y ago

Is your position basically that I should be able to post "CodeSgt is a sex offender and murderer" signs around your neighbourhood, and to your employer and social circle, and this is completely fine because it only has the effect of making you "upset"?