5 ms·

> The right to free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything without consequences. If you’re a deliberate liar who provably lies to profit and harm ot

> The right to free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything without consequences. If you’re a deliberate liar who provably lies to profit and harm others, you can and should be punished. Right, and how do you obtain that "proof of deliberateness"? Or measure that non-physical harm in a way that doesn't give power to people who just don't like what you're saying (possibly the truth)? Most people in favour of free speech already know about libel and defamation, you're just trying to muddy the waters here.

CJefferson 2y ago
You obtain it through a court, exactly had happened here. Jones as a deliberate lair, who has ruined the lives of dozens of people who had already had the most terrible thing happen to them -- the murder of a child.
- logicchains 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mountainriver 2y ago
    Wow go read the stories of the parents who dealt with this and think about who you are defending
    - capybaraStorm 2y ago
      Whether their stories about what they dealt with are true or not, they have incredible incentive to make sure they present such dealings as worth a billion dollars. You can't put a price on human life, but if you could surely those children are worth a billion and more, so they just took the money from Jones (the nearest lying person they hated) instead of the broke murderer. Bernhard Gaetz famously said (accurately) the victims family never got a dime from him after the lawsuit. It's quite likely similar will be said from Jones, although they can take the scraps of Infowars which is worth very little without their star loon. They are grasping at straws while being yanked around by attorneys, while the brutal truth is the real enemy that murdered their children is in a grave and they will never be able to truly dish out justice to him while they flail around looking for it elsewhere.
      - CJefferson 2y ago
        I think Jones hurt them more than the murderer. People do have their children murdered, and it's terrible, but they often go on with their lives. Because of Jones, these parents were harrassed for years, forced to move home and go into hiding. Yes, it wasn't Jones doing the harrassing directly, but he was the one accussing them of being actors for years.
        capybaraStorm 2y ago
        I don't at all agree with what Jones said. I find it disgusting. But you should take a look at some of the videos of the parents. There is one, where the dad is laughing and smiling and suddenly goes up to the microphone and switches to sad dad mode. Now being a thinking, somewhat empathetic human being I understand people handle grief differently. I don't think he was an actor. But I understand why he might be viewed that way. It seems insane to me that somehow it was lawfared that Jone's real interpretation that it looked like acting to him (it looked like acting to me, but I know it wasn't and those kids really were killed) and somehow it is his fault that he is liable for harrassment others do under the flag of agreeing with Jones' take. That has an incredibly chilling effect on speech. Jones did lose the civil case but it was a weird one, in the right venue, at the right time, in the worst possible light, and with pretty bad representation both of himself and spotty counsel. It's not something to look at to rest your hat on for how these things will continue to be interpreted in the future.
        CJefferson 2y ago
        I do not find it credible to jump from one person showing a happy emotion at a stressful time, which happens in the real world all the time, to “this whole thing was the biggest setup of all time, a dozen children are fake, there are no bodies buried in the ground, but no one will admit it out of the hundreds who must have been involved”, and then to continue that, with no concrete evidence, for years and years (Jones will say he mentioned this once or twice. That is a clear lie with obvious evidence against it, we have the tapes proving it). Again, if he’d said this once, or even a couple of times, we wouldn’t be here now. If jones could have provided any reasonable evidence to back up his claims, we wouldn’t be here now.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > exactly had happened here It actually wasn't. The case was decided on a default in discovery and no facts were ever tried. Then the separate penalty trial was started immediately afterwards. The judgement is being appealed, but in Texas, you can collect anyways. If the appeal is successful, then the claimants may have to pay any difference back, or reduce the total amount they can expect to receive from escrow. I really don't think people appreciate the precedents involved here. Including that one of the claimants is was an active FBI agent at the time and was suing over claims involving his job performance which has never been done before. > Jones as a deliberate lair Well, it could be that he actually believes what he says, if so, what exactly should happen then? This was never heard by a jury or judged on those merits.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
moomin 2y ago
I feel like if this is your position, you should make it clear you’re not talking about the first amendment here, which is subject to interpretation by US courts. I’m not sure how you would do this succinctly though. Maybe “Unamerican Free Speech”?
jmull 2y ago
> Right, and how do you obtain that "proof of deliberateness"? Or measure that non-physical harm in a way that doesn't give power to people who just don't like what you're saying (possibly the truth)? If only there were a system of formal rules and a process where evidence is presented by highly trained and experienced experts, presided over by an impartial arbiter, with deliberation, established precedent, a system of appeals, and if only that system had been used here.
skywhopper 2y ago
There’s a long history of law and court cases that have set the rules for making this determination. Do you think this is the first such case in history, that no one has thought of this before? These sorts of laws go back thousands of years in general and hundreds of years specifically in the US. You are not some super genius who just realized it’s hard to figure out if people are intentionally lying. That part of the case is long over with here.

CJefferson 2y ago

You obtain it through a court, exactly had happened here. Jones as a deliberate lair, who has ruined the lives of dozens of people who had already had the most terrible thing happen to them -- the murder of a child.

logicchains 2y ago
[flagged]
- mountainriver 2y ago
  Wow go read the stories of the parents who dealt with this and think about who you are defending
  - capybaraStorm 2y ago
    Whether their stories about what they dealt with are true or not, they have incredible incentive to make sure they present such dealings as worth a billion dollars. You can't put a price on human life, but if you could surely those children are worth a billion and more, so they just took the money from Jones (the nearest lying person they hated) instead of the broke murderer. Bernhard Gaetz famously said (accurately) the victims family never got a dime from him after the lawsuit. It's quite likely similar will be said from Jones, although they can take the scraps of Infowars which is worth very little without their star loon. They are grasping at straws while being yanked around by attorneys, while the brutal truth is the real enemy that murdered their children is in a grave and they will never be able to truly dish out justice to him while they flail around looking for it elsewhere.
    - CJefferson 2y ago
      I think Jones hurt them more than the murderer. People do have their children murdered, and it's terrible, but they often go on with their lives. Because of Jones, these parents were harrassed for years, forced to move home and go into hiding. Yes, it wasn't Jones doing the harrassing directly, but he was the one accussing them of being actors for years.
      - capybaraStorm 2y ago
        I don't at all agree with what Jones said. I find it disgusting. But you should take a look at some of the videos of the parents. There is one, where the dad is laughing and smiling and suddenly goes up to the microphone and switches to sad dad mode. Now being a thinking, somewhat empathetic human being I understand people handle grief differently. I don't think he was an actor. But I understand why he might be viewed that way. It seems insane to me that somehow it was lawfared that Jone's real interpretation that it looked like acting to him (it looked like acting to me, but I know it wasn't and those kids really were killed) and somehow it is his fault that he is liable for harrassment others do under the flag of agreeing with Jones' take. That has an incredibly chilling effect on speech. Jones did lose the civil case but it was a weird one, in the right venue, at the right time, in the worst possible light, and with pretty bad representation both of himself and spotty counsel. It's not something to look at to rest your hat on for how these things will continue to be interpreted in the future.
        CJefferson 2y ago
        I do not find it credible to jump from one person showing a happy emotion at a stressful time, which happens in the real world all the time, to “this whole thing was the biggest setup of all time, a dozen children are fake, there are no bodies buried in the ground, but no one will admit it out of the hundreds who must have been involved”, and then to continue that, with no concrete evidence, for years and years (Jones will say he mentioned this once or twice. That is a clear lie with obvious evidence against it, we have the tapes proving it). Again, if he’d said this once, or even a couple of times, we wouldn’t be here now. If jones could have provided any reasonable evidence to back up his claims, we wouldn’t be here now.
akira2501 2y ago
> exactly had happened here It actually wasn't. The case was decided on a default in discovery and no facts were ever tried. Then the separate penalty trial was started immediately afterwards. The judgement is being appealed, but in Texas, you can collect anyways. If the appeal is successful, then the claimants may have to pay any difference back, or reduce the total amount they can expect to receive from escrow. I really don't think people appreciate the precedents involved here. Including that one of the claimants is was an active FBI agent at the time and was suing over claims involving his job performance which has never been done before. > Jones as a deliberate lair Well, it could be that he actually believes what he says, if so, what exactly should happen then? This was never heard by a jury or judged on those merits.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

moomin 2y ago

I feel like if this is your position, you should make it clear you’re not talking about the first amendment here, which is subject to interpretation by US courts. I’m not sure how you would do this succinctly though. Maybe “Unamerican Free Speech”?

jmull 2y ago

> Right, and how do you obtain that "proof of deliberateness"? Or measure that non-physical harm in a way that doesn't give power to people who just don't like what you're saying (possibly the truth)? If only there were a system of formal rules and a process where evidence is presented by highly trained and experienced experts, presided over by an impartial arbiter, with deliberation, established precedent, a system of appeals, and if only that system had been used here.

skywhopper 2y ago

There’s a long history of law and court cases that have set the rules for making this determination. Do you think this is the first such case in history, that no one has thought of this before? These sorts of laws go back thousands of years in general and hundreds of years specifically in the US. You are not some super genius who just realized it’s hard to figure out if people are intentionally lying. That part of the case is long over with here.