> Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander.
But a $965 million dollar judgment for libel or slander would have to be justified by comparable damages. That isn't the case here.
But a $965 million dollar judgment for libel or slander would have to be justified by comparable damages. That isn't the case here.
Nobody involved had a reputation that was worth $100 million dollars.
Remember, it's almost a billion dollars because twenty children were murdered at Sandy Hook, and Jones' company managed to target all of the parents. If only one parent had sued, we wouldn't be batting an eyelash at the resulting damages. But Jones built an immensely powerful media machine, and then aimed it very carefully at his own testicles. Play stupid games, &c &c.
Damages for wrongful death usually don't even go this high.
Apples vs Oranges.
Anyway if it isn't punitive shouldn't there be some kind of account for how the number was arrived at? I don't see it in the article.
These damages may be above average and the highest ever in a defamation trial, but Alex Jones really took being a defamatory piece of shit to a new level.
This is not really a convincing response to my comment on the per-family damages:
>> Nobody involved had a reputation that was worth $100 million dollars.
You can't lose value you never had.
> How disruptive would it be to my life if that happened to me? Over how many years?
However disruptive it was, the damages could not reach $100 million unless you either (a) spent $100 million dealing with the disruption, or (b) forwent $100 million of earnings in order to deal with the disruption. (Or any combination.) Again, that hasn't happened. You can't deal $100 million of economic damage to someone who doesn't possess assets worth $100 million. That is a major reason for the concept of punitive damages.
>> damages could not reach $100 million unless you either (a) spent $100 million dealing with the disruption
You would additionally have some criminal liability, but that doesn't affect damages.
Very probably the matter is not with reputation. What seems to be more plausible instead is:
-- the victims having had an angry mob risen against them (and of course in the context of having suffered a diremost loss);
-- the responsible having financially exploited the situation.
This has nothing to do with the lawsuit. It's not a defamation claim; it's not a damages claim. You'd have to make a claim for unjust enrichment.
I'm not saying I'm sure these numbers will hold up (punitive damages under CUTPA are uncapped, though!), but I think the story about how the jury could have reached these numbers is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.
In particular:
(1) It's not just defamation.
(2) You do not in fact need to make a "claim for unjust enrichment" to recover profits earned through an intentional tort.
I would need a lot more than your assertion to be convinced of this. Here's Ward Farnsworth introducing his book, Restitution: Civil Liability for Unjust Enrichment:
> Restitution is the mirror image of tort law. You sue in tort to recover for losses that you have suffered. You bring a restitution claim to recover gains that another party has obtained. In some cases it makes no difference which claim you bring, because your losses and the other side's gains are the same. Or you might prefer a tort claim because your losses are bigger than the defendant's gains, as usually is true when you suffer damage in an accident. But sometimes going after the defendant's gains will allow a much bigger recovery, or is the plaintiff's only way to recover at all.
> Restitution is the great overlooked topic in American private law. In this country most students can't learn about it even if they want to; few schools teach the subject. Students only hear about restitution as the name of an occasional remedy in contract cases. But restitution is the name of a claim, not just a remedy. So lawyers often overlook restitution and sometimes try to use tort and contract to solve problems that restitution law would handle better. Missing or misunderstanding the right to go after a defendant's gains can be a very expensive oversight.
( https://reason.com/volokh/2014/10/27/restitution-law-interes... )
Here we see a brief mention of Jesse Ventura's novel (in 2014) legal strategy of including a claim for unjust enrichment in his defamation suit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
(From the piece: "The jury awarded plaintiff $500,000 for defamation, and $1,345,477.25 on the unjust enrichment theory.")
Why would he do that, if it were just part of how all torts are handled? What would be unusual about it? (And why would Ward Farnsworth introduce the subject by pointing out that "tort claims and restitution claims are opposite things"?)
I don't see anything indicating this in the linked article.
Whatever bankruptcy judge he ends up before might not be amused by such antics.
Sure, but debts from frauds and willful and malicious harms, includong associated punitive damages, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Please don't do these things on HN, regardless of how strong the provocation is. It just makes everything worse.
Sure, we have a scenario in three parts:
1. Your daughter goes to school.
2. She bleeds to death in a corridor.
3. You get attacked by strangers claiming you are a phony.
Don't you think the damage occurs in step 2? What did Alex Jones have to do with that?
Can you imagine meeting an alien who reveals to you a better way of life, founding a religion according to his teachings, attracting followers, and then for years you get attacked by strangers claiming you made it all up? What would they owe you?
Damage occurred in both steps 2 & 3, but as you point out, Alex Jones had nothing to do with step 2, so this case is about step 3.
Because that's what Alex Jones targeted to abuse these people. He didn't kill their children, but he did take people whose children were killed, and lie about that fact in order to attack these people for money.