4 ms·

The legal situation notwithstanding I actually kinda agree with this. You have to pay $1e6 in punitive damages because you were actively trying to defame him an

by Spivak 3y ago

The legal situation notwithstanding I actually kinda agree with this. You have to pay $1e6 in punitive damages because you were actively trying to defame him and we want you to be sufficiently disincentivized from trying it again. But since you failed so spectacularly and didn't do any actual harm to him personally or his career here's $1 actual of damages. Can you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone? I think you have to take intent into account and here it's so blatantly purposeful.

adolph 3y ago
> Can you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone? Yes, there is typically differences in law between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, premeditated murder, hate crime additions, etc. If one were to balance benefit/harm, if the jury found that the would-be defamers benefited Mann personally and professionally in the manner of the "Streisand Effect," would Mann need to pay them?
- Spivak 3y ago
  By my reading you're agreeing with me. Attempting murder is also a crime where here there isn't really "attempted defamation" despite the actions and intent of the would-be defamer being identical. If you believe any part of the justice system is supposed to act as a deterrent then sincerely trying and failing to harm someone else is an act worthy of punishment. You might argue that punitive damages ought to be collected by the state or destroyed but regardless their function is identical.
  - adolph 3y ago
    I don’t agree and not agree, just exploring the idea. I think the deterrent part of a justice system is to deter the person harmed from initiating or continuing a cycle of retribution that reduces civilization to ruin. If it could be a deterrent for people who do wrong, then it does a bad job of it. In reality the wrongs and rights people do are not their own, just random happenstance that configured a person to be in the position to act in a certain way at a certain time.
tzs 3y ago
> an you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone? As the great Sideshow Bob put it [1]: "Attempted murder", now honestly, what is that!? Do they give a Nobel prize for "attempted" chemistry? Do they? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQPNQ0PFSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQPNQ0PFSc
crazygringo 3y ago
No, because this is a civil suit, not a criminal one. In a criminal one you are correct -- if you try to rob a bank and try but fail to kill a bunch of hostages, you're still going to jail for possibly the rest of your life. But in a civil trial, the main point is the damages. Yes there can be a punitive element on top, but only if there are damages in the first place. If you attempt something bad but don't succeed, a civil suit can't punish you. It's not like a criminal trial.
- Spivak 3y ago
  This is why I said the legal situation notwithstanding. I know this is how it works but I think it's nonsensical. The existence of punitive damages already throws out the idea that civil suits are just about real measured harm and includes the state overlaying elements of criminality on top of civil suits to punish wrongdoing. To me the only consistent stances are either not having punitive damages at all and accounting for intangibles directly in the real damages or having punitive damages that are totally orthogonal to the real harm. And just like criminal cases we can account for attempted X being less severe than X.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > The existence of punitive damages already throws out the idea that civil suits are just about real measured harm and includes the state overlaying elements of criminality on top of civil suits to punish wrongdoing. No, it has nothing to do with elements of criminality. It's the simple fact that if civil actions resulted in only restitution and nothing more, then everybody would be committing torts whenever they could, because sometimes you'll get away with it and sometimes you won't, but statistically you'll always come out ahead. Because sometimes people don't bring charges, sometimes they're too hard to prove, etc. So the additional punishment is a way to correct that, to ensure that civil suits still function as deterrence. To ensure that if we only count the suits successfully brought and prosecuted, the tort-committer will still lose overall in the end. There's nothing to do with criminality here, which is prosecuted by the state rather than by a private party.
    - 3y ago

by Spivak 3y ago

adolph 3y ago

> Can you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone? Yes, there is typically differences in law between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, premeditated murder, hate crime additions, etc. If one were to balance benefit/harm, if the jury found that the would-be defamers benefited Mann personally and professionally in the manner of the "Streisand Effect," would Mann need to pay them?

Spivak 3y ago
By my reading you're agreeing with me. Attempting murder is also a crime where here there isn't really "attempted defamation" despite the actions and intent of the would-be defamer being identical. If you believe any part of the justice system is supposed to act as a deterrent then sincerely trying and failing to harm someone else is an act worthy of punishment. You might argue that punitive damages ought to be collected by the state or destroyed but regardless their function is identical.
- adolph 3y ago
  I don’t agree and not agree, just exploring the idea. I think the deterrent part of a justice system is to deter the person harmed from initiating or continuing a cycle of retribution that reduces civilization to ruin. If it could be a deterrent for people who do wrong, then it does a bad job of it. In reality the wrongs and rights people do are not their own, just random happenstance that configured a person to be in the position to act in a certain way at a certain time.

tzs 3y ago

> an you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone? As the great Sideshow Bob put it [1]: "Attempted murder", now honestly, what is that!? Do they give a Nobel prize for "attempted" chemistry? Do they? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQPNQ0PFSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQPNQ0PFSc

crazygringo 3y ago

No, because this is a civil suit, not a criminal one. In a criminal one you are correct -- if you try to rob a bank and try but fail to kill a bunch of hostages, you're still going to jail for possibly the rest of your life. But in a civil trial, the main point is the damages. Yes there can be a punitive element on top, but only if there are damages in the first place. If you attempt something bad but don't succeed, a civil suit can't punish you. It's not like a criminal trial.

Spivak 3y ago
This is why I said the legal situation notwithstanding. I know this is how it works but I think it's nonsensical. The existence of punitive damages already throws out the idea that civil suits are just about real measured harm and includes the state overlaying elements of criminality on top of civil suits to punish wrongdoing. To me the only consistent stances are either not having punitive damages at all and accounting for intangibles directly in the real damages or having punitive damages that are totally orthogonal to the real harm. And just like criminal cases we can account for attempted X being less severe than X.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > The existence of punitive damages already throws out the idea that civil suits are just about real measured harm and includes the state overlaying elements of criminality on top of civil suits to punish wrongdoing. No, it has nothing to do with elements of criminality. It's the simple fact that if civil actions resulted in only restitution and nothing more, then everybody would be committing torts whenever they could, because sometimes you'll get away with it and sometimes you won't, but statistically you'll always come out ahead. Because sometimes people don't bring charges, sometimes they're too hard to prove, etc. So the additional punishment is a way to correct that, to ensure that civil suits still function as deterrence. To ensure that if we only count the suits successfully brought and prosecuted, the tort-committer will still lose overall in the end. There's nothing to do with criminality here, which is prosecuted by the state rather than by a private party.
  - 3y ago