3 ms·

Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-

Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-that some public figures were supposedly “crisis actors”? (Peoples who’s names he never even mentioned, at that..) If calling public figures actors is all it takes for them to successfully sue for millions, the bar seems incredibly low.

djur 4y ago
Jones didn't bother to show up to court to defend himself, so the plaintiffs won by default.
ncallaway 4y ago
> Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-that some public figures were supposedly “crisis actors”? No. First, the Sandy Hook parents were not public figures. Second, Jones and Infowars did significantly more than just make claims about people being crisis actors (though, that in itself absolutely can be defamatory in that it was a false statement of fact). There were also claims that some parent's fabricated their daughter's identify and then faked her death in order to steal money from hard-working Americans. Third, this was not a matter of Jones simply making an assertion once. He repeated these claims for years, which led to a significant and ongoing harassment of the family. The original complaint is here, though I'll note that it's from 2018 and much more evidence was discovered since the complaint was filed: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=15913486 https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInqu.... Fourth, Jones refused to participate in the lawsuit itself, deliberately and repeatedly not complying with repeated discovery orders. This led to a default judgement against him. Fifth, an entire trial was held on how much damage Jones' defamatory statements and unfair trade practices caused. A jury of his peers determined that Jones' defamatory actions caused $965 Million dollars in damages. So, I think your characterization of it as "an entertainer simply repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show" is an absolutely incomplete summary of what happened, and why he was found to be liable for his actions. Which jurisdiction(s) do you think would have afforded more protections to Jones' defamatory conduct? The entire docket can be found here: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=UWYCV186046438S https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail....

djur 4y ago

Jones didn't bother to show up to court to defend himself, so the plaintiffs won by default.

ncallaway 4y ago

> Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-that some public figures were supposedly “crisis actors”? No. First, the Sandy Hook parents were not public figures. Second, Jones and Infowars did significantly more than just make claims about people being crisis actors (though, that in itself absolutely can be defamatory in that it was a false statement of fact). There were also claims that some parent's fabricated their daughter's identify and then faked her death in order to steal money from hard-working Americans. Third, this was not a matter of Jones simply making an assertion once. He repeated these claims for years, which led to a significant and ongoing harassment of the family. The original complaint is here, though I'll note that it's from 2018 and much more evidence was discovered since the complaint was filed: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=15913486 https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInqu.... Fourth, Jones refused to participate in the lawsuit itself, deliberately and repeatedly not complying with repeated discovery orders. This led to a default judgement against him. Fifth, an entire trial was held on how much damage Jones' defamatory statements and unfair trade practices caused. A jury of his peers determined that Jones' defamatory actions caused $965 Million dollars in damages. So, I think your characterization of it as "an entertainer simply repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show" is an absolutely incomplete summary of what happened, and why he was found to be liable for his actions. Which jurisdiction(s) do you think would have afforded more protections to Jones' defamatory conduct? The entire docket can be found here: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=UWYCV186046438S https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail....