2 ms·

It seems weird to me too. That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself. And even that seems about an order of m

by GuB-42 2y ago

It seems weird to me too. That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself. And even that seems about an order of magnitude higher than I would have expected, even including the psychological damage of the surviving victims and the community at large. To me, it looks like some kind of a legal exploit to destroy Infowars and Alex Jones business in general, which I think is deserved (it is essentially a scam), but not very satisfying from a rule of law perspective.

glenstein 2y ago
>That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself. I don't know, ginning up mobs to harass the families who just lost their kids is probably the next worst thing. Moral responsibility involves a combination of harm and awareness of what one is doing. I would be profoundly disappointed if someone could go this far and still not qualify for maximum punitive damages.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
harimau777 2y ago
I'm not sure it's exactly a legal exploit. As I understand it, part of the purpose of this sort of suit is to prevent the person being sued from continuing to defame the victims. Therefore, the penalty is set at what is likely to accomplish that. However, in this case, the only penalty likely to stop Jones is one large enough to put him out of business.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself The economic focus of the civil justice system, and the fact that the dead can't claim damages for death, means that killing people who aren't the breadwinners that others depend on, and especially children who are themselves dependent economically, usually produces very limited damages, whereas defamation of the living with wide reach and high impact has very large damages. Criminal consequences, of course, scale differently.

by GuB-42 2y ago

glenstein 2y ago

>That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself. I don't know, ginning up mobs to harass the families who just lost their kids is probably the next worst thing. Moral responsibility involves a combination of harm and awareness of what one is doing. I would be profoundly disappointed if someone could go this far and still not qualify for maximum punitive damages.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

harimau777 2y ago

I'm not sure it's exactly a legal exploit. As I understand it, part of the purpose of this sort of suit is to prevent the person being sued from continuing to defame the victims. Therefore, the penalty is set at what is likely to accomplish that. However, in this case, the only penalty likely to stop Jones is one large enough to put him out of business.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself The economic focus of the civil justice system, and the fact that the dead can't claim damages for death, means that killing people who aren't the breadwinners that others depend on, and especially children who are themselves dependent economically, usually produces very limited damages, whereas defamation of the living with wide reach and high impact has very large damages. Criminal consequences, of course, scale differently.