4 ms·

Yes and he profits from fooling mentally ill people. Selling homeopatic pills and whatever. But I think the right to be wrong is way more important than gettin

Yes and he profits from fooling mentally ill people. Selling homeopatic pills and whatever. But I think the right to be wrong is way more important than getting at Alexander Jones. The precedent is bad.

nixdev 2y ago
[flagged]
- anotherhue 2y ago
  Which part do you think is made up? https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-infowars-supplements-to-a-lab-heres https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-a...
  - nixdev 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - anotherhue 2y ago
      Look, I'm a nix fan and a former SRE which seems to be a similar background to you. I obviously don't have details but I think it's clear you're not in a good headspace, if you can, would you consider taking a short break and going for a walk or something? HN will still be here.
      - nixdev 2y ago
        [dead]
afavour 2y ago
> The precedent is bad. I think the opposite precent would be worse. Regulating your tone around anyone with even a mediocum of power for fear of repercussion is part of the reason we're in the situation we face today.
metamet 2y ago
What precedent do you think this sets exactly?
hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
There is a right to be wrong. But when you profit off the suffering and harm you've caused by being wrong knowingly and continuing to cause harm, then its a very good precedent.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
The right to be wrong is important. The right to deliberately lie in ways that harm people is not a "right" that we want to uphold.
- larrywright 2y ago
  And profit off of the lies.
AdamN 2y ago
The precedent would otherwise be that it is ok ignoring and debasing the US Justice system.
miltonlost 2y ago
Calling Sandy Hook a hoax and harrassing grieving parents is not "the right to be wrong".
- nixdev 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - afavour 2y ago
    He inspired the harassment. It was obvious to everyone, Jones included, that his actions were resulting in grieving parents being harassed and he did not change his actions. At some point people should be held responsible for the actions they know they are inspiring in others.
    - nixdev 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - afavour 2y ago
        > Funny how quick "he harassed them" turns into "he inspired the harassment" Yes, it's called a "clarification". OP misspoke, I clarified. If there are any other language features we can expand upon in this thread now is as good a time as any, I suppose. > for which there is no legal precedent anywhere, ever. May I introduce you to the concept of "incitement"? Not on the law books in Texas so Jones wasn't tried for it but let's not pretend it doesn't exist as a concept "anywhere, ever".
        nixdev 2y ago
        "Someone harassed someone" and "someone else drew inspiration to harass someone from remarks" are wildly different things. "hurr durr someone misspoke", lol no -- those are wildly different thing and someone just got called out for posting total horse shit. > May I introduce you to the concept of "incitement"? Show me a single video clip where a sane and sober person could construe one of Alex's remarks to be "incitement". Pro tip: you CAN'T. We already know you fucking can't.
c-linkage 2y ago
The Paradox of Tolerance: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance> A good reply I found online: The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard but as a social contract. If someone does not abide the terms of mutual tolerance, then they are not covered by the contract. By definition intolerant people do not follow the rules so they are no longer covered and should not be tolerated.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Indeed. And one of the wonders of this is that anyone can determine that you have not abided by the terms. Even Stalin’s Russia was tolerant. It merely deemed many people to not abide by the terms of mutual tolerance.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  I have yet to hear what meaning tolerance has in this interpretation. Surely chairman mao agrees with free speech that doesn’t harm his society and social programs
- int_19h 2y ago
  That's awfully close to "terrorists shouldn't have rights", and problematic for the same reason.
  - genrilz 2y ago
    I think it's actually closer to "terrorists should go to prison". Terrorists and other criminals have broken a social contract, and a level of punishment that some approximation of society deems to be acceptable is extracted from the terrorists. This doesn't mean that terrorists don't/shouldn't have some rights. Similarly, thinking about tolerance as a social contract doesn't require stripping anyone who violates this contract of all of their rights.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      FWIW I don't actually have a problem with Jones specifically getting in trouble over defamation after getting his day in court. What I have a problem with is the broad notion that it's generally okay to "not tolerate the intolerant" to the point of forcibly suppressing them. The paradox of tolerance is not really a paradox when we're talking about intolerant speech.
UncleMeat 2y ago
"Being wrong" and "repeatedly defaming people" are quite different.
rurp 2y ago
I can't imagine a more valid use for defamation laws than to prevent someone from knowingly and repeatedly causing death threats and other harassment to be directed at parents whose children have been murdered. After being sued, Jones completely failed to defend himself in any meaningful way and lost the suit by default. I honestly have no idea which part of this chain of events you object to. People should be free to send mobs after parents grieving an unimaginable tragedy? Morons who get sued should win by default?

nixdev 2y ago

[flagged]

anotherhue 2y ago
Which part do you think is made up? https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-infowars-supplements-to-a-lab-heres https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-a...
- nixdev 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - anotherhue 2y ago
    Look, I'm a nix fan and a former SRE which seems to be a similar background to you. I obviously don't have details but I think it's clear you're not in a good headspace, if you can, would you consider taking a short break and going for a walk or something? HN will still be here.
    - nixdev 2y ago
      [dead]

afavour 2y ago

> The precedent is bad. I think the opposite precent would be worse. Regulating your tone around anyone with even a mediocum of power for fear of repercussion is part of the reason we're in the situation we face today.

metamet 2y ago

What precedent do you think this sets exactly?

hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago

There is a right to be wrong. But when you profit off the suffering and harm you've caused by being wrong knowingly and continuing to cause harm, then its a very good precedent.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

The right to be wrong is important. The right to deliberately lie in ways that harm people is not a "right" that we want to uphold.

larrywright 2y ago
And profit off of the lies.

AdamN 2y ago

The precedent would otherwise be that it is ok ignoring and debasing the US Justice system.

miltonlost 2y ago

Calling Sandy Hook a hoax and harrassing grieving parents is not "the right to be wrong".

nixdev 2y ago
[flagged]
- afavour 2y ago
  He inspired the harassment. It was obvious to everyone, Jones included, that his actions were resulting in grieving parents being harassed and he did not change his actions. At some point people should be held responsible for the actions they know they are inspiring in others.
  - nixdev 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - afavour 2y ago
      > Funny how quick "he harassed them" turns into "he inspired the harassment" Yes, it's called a "clarification". OP misspoke, I clarified. If there are any other language features we can expand upon in this thread now is as good a time as any, I suppose. > for which there is no legal precedent anywhere, ever. May I introduce you to the concept of "incitement"? Not on the law books in Texas so Jones wasn't tried for it but let's not pretend it doesn't exist as a concept "anywhere, ever".
      - nixdev 2y ago
        "Someone harassed someone" and "someone else drew inspiration to harass someone from remarks" are wildly different things. "hurr durr someone misspoke", lol no -- those are wildly different thing and someone just got called out for posting total horse shit. > May I introduce you to the concept of "incitement"? Show me a single video clip where a sane and sober person could construe one of Alex's remarks to be "incitement". Pro tip: you CAN'T. We already know you fucking can't.

c-linkage 2y ago

The Paradox of Tolerance: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance> A good reply I found online: The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard but as a social contract. If someone does not abide the terms of mutual tolerance, then they are not covered by the contract. By definition intolerant people do not follow the rules so they are no longer covered and should not be tolerated.

renewiltord 2y ago
Indeed. And one of the wonders of this is that anyone can determine that you have not abided by the terms. Even Stalin’s Russia was tolerant. It merely deemed many people to not abide by the terms of mutual tolerance.
tightbookkeeper 2y ago
I have yet to hear what meaning tolerance has in this interpretation. Surely chairman mao agrees with free speech that doesn’t harm his society and social programs
int_19h 2y ago
That's awfully close to "terrorists shouldn't have rights", and problematic for the same reason.
- genrilz 2y ago
  I think it's actually closer to "terrorists should go to prison". Terrorists and other criminals have broken a social contract, and a level of punishment that some approximation of society deems to be acceptable is extracted from the terrorists. This doesn't mean that terrorists don't/shouldn't have some rights. Similarly, thinking about tolerance as a social contract doesn't require stripping anyone who violates this contract of all of their rights.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    FWIW I don't actually have a problem with Jones specifically getting in trouble over defamation after getting his day in court. What I have a problem with is the broad notion that it's generally okay to "not tolerate the intolerant" to the point of forcibly suppressing them. The paradox of tolerance is not really a paradox when we're talking about intolerant speech.

UncleMeat 2y ago

"Being wrong" and "repeatedly defaming people" are quite different.

rurp 2y ago

I can't imagine a more valid use for defamation laws than to prevent someone from knowingly and repeatedly causing death threats and other harassment to be directed at parents whose children have been murdered. After being sued, Jones completely failed to defend himself in any meaningful way and lost the suit by default. I honestly have no idea which part of this chain of events you object to. People should be free to send mobs after parents grieving an unimaginable tragedy? Morons who get sued should win by default?