3 ms·

I didn't say they didn't provide reasoning, I said that their reasoning feels icky to me. Essentially, the jury's decision says that no harm was done but that S

I didn't say they didn't provide reasoning, I said that their reasoning feels icky to me. Essentially, the jury's decision says that no harm was done but that Steyn's motives for speech were reason enough for him to be punished regardless of the actual outcome of that speech. To me that's a very scary result.

croes 3y ago
If I try to run you over with my car but I miss, then all is ok? Just because they failed in harming him doesn't make it harmless.
- lolinder 3y ago
  In the US, speech has higher protections than other malfeasance. You cannot legally be punished for defamation if your words caused no harm, regardless of your intent.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    But that doesn't mean you can't be held responsible and civilly liable, which is what punitive damages are. Civil court has a "lower" standard of evidence because it can't take your rights away, not because it can't find you at fault for something and levy a "don't freaking do that" fine against you.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      As I've replied elsewhere, it's not a question of the existence of the punitive damages, it's a question of ratio. 4:1 is a typical ratio, 1m:1 is completely unheard of. You have to actually have damaged someone to have punitive damages levied for what you did, and by setting $1 as the actual damages the jury acknowledges no harm was done and therefore cannot levy substantial punitive damages.
  - buttercraft 3y ago
    They "legally" did find harm: $1
    - lolinder 3y ago
      And as I've said elsewhere, that number gives them the right to levy up to $500 in punitive damages if they feel that Steyn's actions were especially egregious (and even that number would be subject to severe scrutiny on appeal). A 1:1m ratio of actual to punitive damages is just punishing speech as speech, not a true defamation verdict.
      - croes 3y ago
        The District of Colombia doesn't have those caps
        lolinder 3y ago
        The District of Columbia is within the United States and under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, so Supreme Court rulings establishing a rule of proportionality definitely still apply. What you're referring to is that there is no cap to the monetary amount of either type of damages, not that the ratio between them can be severely disproportionate.
cogman10 3y ago
It was intent to harm through lying. I'm not sure why that feels scary, seems pretty right in line with defamation in general. The truth is an absolute defense in defamation, so the scary result is what? Willfully lying to harm people is not protected? To take it a step further, if the person being lied about is a public figure, lying enjoys even more protections (you basically have to have the smoking "I'm lying about this" email for a public figure to prove defamation).
- lolinder 3y ago
  > It was intent to harm through lying. I'm not sure why that feels scary, seems pretty right in line with defamation in general. Not in the US. If no harm is done, there's no defamation, harm being done is part of the definition: > To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
  - cogman10 3y ago
    The jury found some harm done (1 dollars worth) and then issued punitive damages because of the intent to harm. Punitive damages are for when a judge/jury feels the conduct of one of the party's was bad. Conduct includes things like trying to damage someone's reputation. Again, I just fall to see what's scary here. Don't plan on lying about someone and your golden.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      Punitive damages are typically capped at a 4:1 ratio to the actual damages. 10:1 is suspect, and even the extreme cases that go all the way to the Supreme Court are 500:1. This is 1m:1, 2000 times the most extreme cases (which the Supreme Court usually throws out).
elil17 3y ago
Considering intent is the core of America's legal system. You can go to jail for attempted murder even if no one got hurt. You can get away with killing someone if you can show it was an unforeseeable accident. And yes, you can get punitive damages even if you caused little or no harm.
- lolinder 3y ago
  All of that is true for those offenses, but it is not true of speech. A plaintiff is required to prove actual damage for there to be defamation, and the jury here acknowledged that the actual damages were worth approximately nil. That means that there should be no defamation verdict, or at the very least that punitive damages should be <$10. The rule of thumb for punitive damages in the US is a 4:1 ratio, with 10:1 or higher being almost certainly unconstitutional barring extreme circumstances. Even in those cases we're looking at ratios of 500:1, not 1m:1.
  - elil17 3y ago
    > All of that is true for those offenses, but it is not true of speech. I believe this is not the case when the plaintiff can show actual malice. > The rule of thumb for punitive damages in the US is a 4:1 ratio, with 10:1 or higher being almost certainly unconstitutional barring extreme circumstances Right - that's why the defense is appealing, as discussed in the article. However, given that the judge did not adjust the award sua sponte I believe there is some actual legal question about whether this is one of those "extreme circumstances" (e.g. due to the degree of malice).
    - lolinder 3y ago
      Again, the "extreme circumstances" called for ratios on the order of 500:1. This is 2000x larger.
      - elil17 3y ago
        Perhaps you're basing that on TXO v Alliance? The specific ratio for TXO (which happened to be 526-to-1) does not paint the full picture. Consider two things: 1. TXO does not provide a hard-and-fast rule on a maximum ratio of compensatory to punative damages. Rather, the justices say that "It is appropriate to consider the magnitude of the potential harm that the defendant's conduct would have caused to its intended victim if the wrongful plan had succeeded, as well as the possible harm to other victims that might have resulted if similar future behavior were not deterred." 2. TXO further limits the mandate of due process review of punitive damages by saying that the jury does not have to be wholly accurate in their assessment of punitive damages but rather that courts should ensure their award would not "jar one's constitutional sensibilities." If a jury might reasonably think that the damage to Mann could have been about $1m if the defendant had successfully discredited him in, say, the eyes of his employers, and if the jury was given proper instructions, that is sufficient to uphold their award under TXO. Further due process review should consider these questions, not whether the punitive damage/compensatory damage ratio is over some arbitrary threshold.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arcastroe 3y ago
I agree it's a little scary. Would it have been protected speech if they had prefaced the offending remarks with "in my opinion " or "in this author's opinion "?
soco 3y ago
In criminal law, the guy who tries to shoot you but misses will get punished as well. Now whether this is a good parallel or not, your decision.

croes 3y ago

If I try to run you over with my car but I miss, then all is ok? Just because they failed in harming him doesn't make it harmless.

lolinder 3y ago
In the US, speech has higher protections than other malfeasance. You cannot legally be punished for defamation if your words caused no harm, regardless of your intent.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  But that doesn't mean you can't be held responsible and civilly liable, which is what punitive damages are. Civil court has a "lower" standard of evidence because it can't take your rights away, not because it can't find you at fault for something and levy a "don't freaking do that" fine against you.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    As I've replied elsewhere, it's not a question of the existence of the punitive damages, it's a question of ratio. 4:1 is a typical ratio, 1m:1 is completely unheard of. You have to actually have damaged someone to have punitive damages levied for what you did, and by setting $1 as the actual damages the jury acknowledges no harm was done and therefore cannot levy substantial punitive damages.
- buttercraft 3y ago
  They "legally" did find harm: $1
  - lolinder 3y ago
    And as I've said elsewhere, that number gives them the right to levy up to $500 in punitive damages if they feel that Steyn's actions were especially egregious (and even that number would be subject to severe scrutiny on appeal). A 1:1m ratio of actual to punitive damages is just punishing speech as speech, not a true defamation verdict.
    - croes 3y ago
      The District of Colombia doesn't have those caps
      - lolinder 3y ago
        The District of Columbia is within the United States and under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, so Supreme Court rulings establishing a rule of proportionality definitely still apply. What you're referring to is that there is no cap to the monetary amount of either type of damages, not that the ratio between them can be severely disproportionate.

cogman10 3y ago

It was intent to harm through lying. I'm not sure why that feels scary, seems pretty right in line with defamation in general. The truth is an absolute defense in defamation, so the scary result is what? Willfully lying to harm people is not protected? To take it a step further, if the person being lied about is a public figure, lying enjoys even more protections (you basically have to have the smoking "I'm lying about this" email for a public figure to prove defamation).

lolinder 3y ago
> It was intent to harm through lying. I'm not sure why that feels scary, seems pretty right in line with defamation in general. Not in the US. If no harm is done, there's no defamation, harm being done is part of the definition: > To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
- cogman10 3y ago
  The jury found some harm done (1 dollars worth) and then issued punitive damages because of the intent to harm. Punitive damages are for when a judge/jury feels the conduct of one of the party's was bad. Conduct includes things like trying to damage someone's reputation. Again, I just fall to see what's scary here. Don't plan on lying about someone and your golden.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Punitive damages are typically capped at a 4:1 ratio to the actual damages. 10:1 is suspect, and even the extreme cases that go all the way to the Supreme Court are 500:1. This is 1m:1, 2000 times the most extreme cases (which the Supreme Court usually throws out).

elil17 3y ago

Considering intent is the core of America's legal system. You can go to jail for attempted murder even if no one got hurt. You can get away with killing someone if you can show it was an unforeseeable accident. And yes, you can get punitive damages even if you caused little or no harm.

lolinder 3y ago
All of that is true for those offenses, but it is not true of speech. A plaintiff is required to prove actual damage for there to be defamation, and the jury here acknowledged that the actual damages were worth approximately nil. That means that there should be no defamation verdict, or at the very least that punitive damages should be <$10. The rule of thumb for punitive damages in the US is a 4:1 ratio, with 10:1 or higher being almost certainly unconstitutional barring extreme circumstances. Even in those cases we're looking at ratios of 500:1, not 1m:1.
- elil17 3y ago
  > All of that is true for those offenses, but it is not true of speech. I believe this is not the case when the plaintiff can show actual malice. > The rule of thumb for punitive damages in the US is a 4:1 ratio, with 10:1 or higher being almost certainly unconstitutional barring extreme circumstances Right - that's why the defense is appealing, as discussed in the article. However, given that the judge did not adjust the award sua sponte I believe there is some actual legal question about whether this is one of those "extreme circumstances" (e.g. due to the degree of malice).
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Again, the "extreme circumstances" called for ratios on the order of 500:1. This is 2000x larger.
    - elil17 3y ago
      Perhaps you're basing that on TXO v Alliance? The specific ratio for TXO (which happened to be 526-to-1) does not paint the full picture. Consider two things: 1. TXO does not provide a hard-and-fast rule on a maximum ratio of compensatory to punative damages. Rather, the justices say that "It is appropriate to consider the magnitude of the potential harm that the defendant's conduct would have caused to its intended victim if the wrongful plan had succeeded, as well as the possible harm to other victims that might have resulted if similar future behavior were not deterred." 2. TXO further limits the mandate of due process review of punitive damages by saying that the jury does not have to be wholly accurate in their assessment of punitive damages but rather that courts should ensure their award would not "jar one's constitutional sensibilities." If a jury might reasonably think that the damage to Mann could have been about $1m if the defendant had successfully discredited him in, say, the eyes of his employers, and if the jury was given proper instructions, that is sufficient to uphold their award under TXO. Further due process review should consider these questions, not whether the punitive damage/compensatory damage ratio is over some arbitrary threshold.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

arcastroe 3y ago

I agree it's a little scary. Would it have been protected speech if they had prefaced the offending remarks with "in my opinion " or "in this author's opinion "?

soco 3y ago

In criminal law, the guy who tries to shoot you but misses will get punished as well. Now whether this is a good parallel or not, your decision.