5 ms·

I think what one person calls "lies and slander", another person can genuinely, reasonably, and justifiably call "exposing bad acts that need to be exposed". T

I think what one person calls "lies and slander", another person can genuinely, reasonably, and justifiably call "exposing bad acts that need to be exposed". The fact that reasonable people often disagree about what's true and what's not is exactly why we must have Free Speech codified in law. The opposite of Free Speech is when one group of people get to lay down the law and assert that their biased point of view is the one true correct world view, and forcibly shutdown the speech of those who disagree.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 2y ago
Reasonable people do disagree about truth frequently, but that's not what happened in this case. In fact, the standard by which one determines the difference between a statement made in ignorance and one made in malice (higher damages may be awarded) is the "reasonable person principle." The First Amendment is there to protect objective truth from government stifling, but the judicial process recognizes truth exists (if it didn't, we'd have no use for trials) and that wanton disregard for truth can cause harm to a person.
- quantadev 2y ago
  I'm not an expert in this area of law, nor do I really know much about any Alex Jones cases, but when I found out he was fined $1.5 billion for believing and furthering a conspiracy that seems excessive. I would hazard a guess there are many lawyers and legal experts who would agree with my opinion, so it's probably not a black-and-white issue, in this particular case. If Alex Jones had been some left-wing commentator, who just went crazy and was wrong about this shooting, who the left loved, they wouldn't have done this lawfare against him. I say there was a lot of personal hatred for him PRIOR to the lawsuit which is the true reason for the huge settlement. People hated him, and they used lawfare to get at him.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    > but when I found out he was fined $1.5 billion for believing and furthering a conspiracy that seems excessive Yes, that's a hole in your understanding of the fact-pattern. He wasn't fined $1.5 billion for believing and furthering a conspiracy. The error of his lawyer revealed evidence that he knew the conspiracy was false but he spread it because it made the people who listen to him keep listening and buying his products, which crosses the line into "malicious" and opens him up (in most states, including Texas) to significantly larger penalties. Jones was hit with a level of consequence few defendants in civil suits over slander are hit with because of how egregious, continuous, and malicious the offense was and because he took actions to mislead the jury. If you're more familiar with crimlaw, civil court is a significantly different animal and worth learning more about. It serves a slightly different function in American society but is part of the fabric of systems that let people sleep at night. > If Alex Jones had been some left-wing commentator, who just went crazy and was wrong about this shooting, who the left loved, they wouldn't have done this lawfare against him. We are currently a pretty tribal society, so I suspect you are correct that nobody on the Left would sue. But you can bet that someone on the Right would have (for bathroom reading, look for summaries of the suits Donald Trump has brought against people in his 78 years and ask yourself if you would consider that "lawfare"). The civil courts are intended to make people who have been harmed whole; someone on the left lying about someone on the right would have to be sued by the aggrieved party for the case to exist. And you are right that emotion enters into it. But regardless of the jury's opinion of the man before the trial (and, again, both parties, which includes Alex Jones's legal representation, tuned the jury to be maximally charitable to their side)... He lied to them on the stand. I don't know that a jury exists that is magnanimous enough to overlook that. One of the points of a jury trial is to judge not just the facts but the overall character of the defendant (because so many facts tend to originate from the defendant themselves, so if the defendant flips the bozo bit in the minds of the jurors, that matters). If you're looking for someone to blame for Jones's fate, start with Jones. Because the evidence shows he's not crazy; he's a con artist.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      On point #1, The operative word in that sentence was "excessive". $1.5B was excessive. On point #2. Your main point is that both sides act in bad faith equally, and I disagree. Dems have been eating up CNN/MSM left-wing propaganda and brainwashing for over a decade and so now there's just no common ground between the two sides any longer.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jjulius 2y ago
"Can" implies that that's not an absolute, right? That there are times where slander and libel aren't being used to "expose bad acts that need to be exposed", but rather to be used maliciously in order to benefit the slanderer at the expense of the slandered. I suppose I'm just curious about a hypothetical, like... I'm wondering where you might draw a line, so maybe entertain me with this for a sec? Let's say you and I work together, and for whatever reason, I don't like you. Maybe you and I are competing for a promotion, or maybe an interaction rubbed me the wrong way, doesn't matter - I want you gone. So, I decide to spread some nasty rumors about you throughout the office - you leer at co-worker's children, you're aggressively sexual with the women in the office, shit like that. Whatever I've come up with to disparage you is bullshit, but for the sake of this conversation, let's say I put a lot of effort into this and that you end up getting let go because of it. Maybe the rumors even happen to jump from your co-workers over to your friends/family. Some of them stop talking to you. Perhaps other businesses in the industry hear about it and opt not to hire you, either. What's your stance on that sort of speech?
- quantadev 2y ago
  You mean do I see a role for Gov't in settling office disputes, whether one party is lying or not? No. I see no role for Gov't there.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    So you believe that maliciously spreading lies to get someone fired, ruin their friendships and cause them to struggle to find another job should be legally permissible. Gotcha, cheers!
    - quantadev 2y ago
      We can have freedom, or we can have safety, but we cannot have both. I value freedom over safety, and so a nanny state that would investigate the telling of lies seems tyrannical to me, yes. "That government is best which governs least." --Henry David Thoreau, 1849

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

shadowgovt 2y ago

Reasonable people do disagree about truth frequently, but that's not what happened in this case. In fact, the standard by which one determines the difference between a statement made in ignorance and one made in malice (higher damages may be awarded) is the "reasonable person principle." The First Amendment is there to protect objective truth from government stifling, but the judicial process recognizes truth exists (if it didn't, we'd have no use for trials) and that wanton disregard for truth can cause harm to a person.

quantadev 2y ago
I'm not an expert in this area of law, nor do I really know much about any Alex Jones cases, but when I found out he was fined $1.5 billion for believing and furthering a conspiracy that seems excessive. I would hazard a guess there are many lawyers and legal experts who would agree with my opinion, so it's probably not a black-and-white issue, in this particular case. If Alex Jones had been some left-wing commentator, who just went crazy and was wrong about this shooting, who the left loved, they wouldn't have done this lawfare against him. I say there was a lot of personal hatred for him PRIOR to the lawsuit which is the true reason for the huge settlement. People hated him, and they used lawfare to get at him.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  > but when I found out he was fined $1.5 billion for believing and furthering a conspiracy that seems excessive Yes, that's a hole in your understanding of the fact-pattern. He wasn't fined $1.5 billion for believing and furthering a conspiracy. The error of his lawyer revealed evidence that he knew the conspiracy was false but he spread it because it made the people who listen to him keep listening and buying his products, which crosses the line into "malicious" and opens him up (in most states, including Texas) to significantly larger penalties. Jones was hit with a level of consequence few defendants in civil suits over slander are hit with because of how egregious, continuous, and malicious the offense was and because he took actions to mislead the jury. If you're more familiar with crimlaw, civil court is a significantly different animal and worth learning more about. It serves a slightly different function in American society but is part of the fabric of systems that let people sleep at night. > If Alex Jones had been some left-wing commentator, who just went crazy and was wrong about this shooting, who the left loved, they wouldn't have done this lawfare against him. We are currently a pretty tribal society, so I suspect you are correct that nobody on the Left would sue. But you can bet that someone on the Right would have (for bathroom reading, look for summaries of the suits Donald Trump has brought against people in his 78 years and ask yourself if you would consider that "lawfare"). The civil courts are intended to make people who have been harmed whole; someone on the left lying about someone on the right would have to be sued by the aggrieved party for the case to exist. And you are right that emotion enters into it. But regardless of the jury's opinion of the man before the trial (and, again, both parties, which includes Alex Jones's legal representation, tuned the jury to be maximally charitable to their side)... He lied to them on the stand. I don't know that a jury exists that is magnanimous enough to overlook that. One of the points of a jury trial is to judge not just the facts but the overall character of the defendant (because so many facts tend to originate from the defendant themselves, so if the defendant flips the bozo bit in the minds of the jurors, that matters). If you're looking for someone to blame for Jones's fate, start with Jones. Because the evidence shows he's not crazy; he's a con artist.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    On point #1, The operative word in that sentence was "excessive". $1.5B was excessive. On point #2. Your main point is that both sides act in bad faith equally, and I disagree. Dems have been eating up CNN/MSM left-wing propaganda and brainwashing for over a decade and so now there's just no common ground between the two sides any longer.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jjulius 2y ago

"Can" implies that that's not an absolute, right? That there are times where slander and libel aren't being used to "expose bad acts that need to be exposed", but rather to be used maliciously in order to benefit the slanderer at the expense of the slandered. I suppose I'm just curious about a hypothetical, like... I'm wondering where you might draw a line, so maybe entertain me with this for a sec? Let's say you and I work together, and for whatever reason, I don't like you. Maybe you and I are competing for a promotion, or maybe an interaction rubbed me the wrong way, doesn't matter - I want you gone. So, I decide to spread some nasty rumors about you throughout the office - you leer at co-worker's children, you're aggressively sexual with the women in the office, shit like that. Whatever I've come up with to disparage you is bullshit, but for the sake of this conversation, let's say I put a lot of effort into this and that you end up getting let go because of it. Maybe the rumors even happen to jump from your co-workers over to your friends/family. Some of them stop talking to you. Perhaps other businesses in the industry hear about it and opt not to hire you, either. What's your stance on that sort of speech?

quantadev 2y ago
You mean do I see a role for Gov't in settling office disputes, whether one party is lying or not? No. I see no role for Gov't there.
- jjulius 2y ago
  So you believe that maliciously spreading lies to get someone fired, ruin their friendships and cause them to struggle to find another job should be legally permissible. Gotcha, cheers!
  - quantadev 2y ago
    We can have freedom, or we can have safety, but we cannot have both. I value freedom over safety, and so a nanny state that would investigate the telling of lies seems tyrannical to me, yes. "That government is best which governs least." --Henry David Thoreau, 1849