[flagged]
It’s fascinating (and worrying) how the people who cry the loudest about the first amendment are the ones who least understand it. 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.
I’m reminded of the Twitter engineer who said “Twitter wants to censor bullying and harassment, and the idea of free speech is that you can bully and harass people”. No dude, not it’s not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
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.
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.
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.
This is the perfect illustration of the first amendment in the US vs the UK. In the UK a violent Maoist (red guard-like) police mob went after teenager for causing offense: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12399911/Revealed-M...
The Sandy Hook parents received death threats for years because of him. That’s not “being offensive”, it’s tormenting people and putting their lives in peril.
https://archive.ph/20221013141353/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
Example lines of inquiry: How does one identify the “first mover”? How does one identify the integrity of the “calls”? What if the calls are a single caller represented separately? What if the calls are falsely represented by motive?
It's horrifying to me that when people don't like a defendant they're willing to justify almost any reduction of that person's rights in an effort to see them "punished."
> you can and should be punished.
This is a civil case. Why should he be "punished?" Shouldn't he just have to pay a settlement? Why is a billion dollars a reasonable penalty for his actions? Why must he necessarily sell his platform when the platform will make the most money staying in Jones' control? Why is it important to the victims in this case to ensure that a specific owner controls these assets?
> I’m reminded of the Twitter engineer who said
Okay, does that have any bearing on this particular case, or it's details?
The first amendment absolutely gives you the right to lie, and the right to profit from that lying if you're not explicitly committing fraud or defaming anyone. You may disagree with it, but that's what the law is.
You don't have a right to lie.
This is defamation, which is also against the law. However, the damages here are incredibly minor, and thus not worth punishing. Most people probably don't believe you.
However, if I made a lie about you that caused you to lose your employment and become unhireable, is that also protected speech?
You don't have a right to harm others with lies. You don't have a right to lie.
I'm aware. That's why I mentioned it. There's no remediation if there's no damages.
If I'm made of marshmallows I'm not human and not eligible for health insurance. If my insurer believes your claim which is a reckless disregard for the truth and I'm denied coverage, you're liable. If my wife leaves me because she didn't want to marry a marshmallow and causes massive legal damages and emotional harms you're liable for defamation.
It's like you're arguing you have the right to punch. Like, sure, swing your arms wherever. But your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose.
You don't have a right to lie about me.
However, there are very specific exceptions. You are not allowed to lie under oath. You are not allowed to defraud. You are not allowed to defame. Those states are each defined separate and apart from “lying,” which is freely permissible.
Also, doctors and lawyers are subjected to discipline by their respective guild. So even if it's your right to say bullshit, you might lose your job and license.
Arguably, there's no to little consequence of being a nobody and lying about something like autism and vaccine. It's probably isn't worth the effort to sue folks. That said, misinformation is clearly harmful and we shouldn't let people lie unchecked.
> There would be nothing stopping Jones from starting again with new equipment and a new domain name.
so... it doesn't constrain his speech at all. I don't see how that is "dangerously close" to taking away his 1A rights
His business wasn't about the exercise of first amendment rights, it was about selling supplements and whatnot.
Would you accept a jurisdiction where, instead of going to prison, you could just pay someone a bunch of money after you've raped or performed some other obviously criminal act against them?
None of what I've written in this thread is about the correctness in how damages are measured, I don't see the relevance of your comment. To me it seems like you're confusing suffering with punishment. Debt is commonly painful, but it's not a punishment.
The purpose of paying damages is to substitute someone else for harm you've caused. This is altogether another purpose than punishments. Paying damages is a reparation, punishment is based in another set of principles.
Less relevant to this case, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress can also both be against the law in the United States.
But we all know the precedent set in this case was a lie. Otherwise anyone who said the kids were really killed would have standing, since Jones thought they were "crisis actors."
We all know this was really used as a back door way to pay the parents for dishonoring the dead. Basically "meh we can't extract justice from the murderer, best we can do is get a lot of money from someone with mutual hate."
Edit: s/precedent/historical precedent/ . I did not mean to imply as assumed below this precedent is legally binding.
Prison and fines are punishments, having to pay damages is not. When you can't afford to pay your debts, bankruptcy is not a punishment, it's a process to clear out the debts so both debtor and creditors can move on.
Punishment regulates the relation between a person and the state and is a part of criminal law, paying damages is part of civil law.
Their point is literally punishment. That is why punitive damages exist in civil law. It's what the word punitive means.
Compensatory damages are awarded in an attempt to compensate the plaintiff for the damage they received due to the actions of the defendant. Punitive damages are awarded to the plaintiff on top of the compensatory damages and their exact purpose is to punish the defendant for their actions.
They are two different types of damages and the exact purpose of punitive damages is to be a punishment. It's their raison d'etre. They were created to provide further levers to punish people.
Just fyi he did, the court kept claiming he had to produce documents / analytics he said he didn’t have. There’s no evidence the documents ever existed, but judge disagreed, so they issued a default judgement (ie no trial).
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1055864452/alex-jones-found-l...
They then had a jury trial to determine damages were in the billions (lol)
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/07/nx-s1-4996347/alex-jones-liqu...
And lost in all this is what jones actually did… which in my judgement is not even liable and we wouldn’t even know because a trial was never held —
https://www.mediamatters.org/alex-jones/here-exactly-what-al...
Which, sure I think is nuts. But I don’t see anything in there besides his opinion and trying to support his bat shit crazy opinion. So what, he thinks it was a fake event. As far as I can tell from this (and perhaps I’m missing something), he didn’t do anything to anyone. If we start penalizing calling people a liar, we’re going to end up in a much worse place where all we have are liars
Which his lawyer then mistakenly sent to the Plaintiff's lawyer, so, they did have them.
Also FYI 'a trial was never held' is a common talking point used by Alex Jones on his program. He and his lawyers are responsible for there not being a trial. Their conduct guaranteed that there was no trial. It's a farce for him to complain about something that he is responsible for.
Your right to sell things derives from the first amendment.
Commerce is constitutionally regulated in another way, by article I of the US constitution having a commerce clause allowing regulation, which, for example, is the basis of drug prohibition.
They'll never be able to stop him from creating "The Alex Jones Off the Deep End Show" where he thrills listeners with zany tales of conspiracies that can only be held at bay with these brand new supplements. He just has to forfeit Infowars and its assets.
So you're unable to think about this problem without putting your bias at the forefront?
> He just has to forfeit Infowars and its assets.
Actually, with this ruling, he does not. Roger Stone's group will get a legitimate change to purchase it to keep it under Jones' control. If you think that's a miscarriage of justice, as the OP does, can you explain why?
Why is forfeiture of his platform a necessity in your eyes?
He is a conspiracy theorist, this is his thing. And he sells supplements on his show. Those are facts, right? I suppose my bias only shows with the characterization of "zany tales"? But IMO it's not even a stretch, this guy seems really quite off base.
> Why is forfeiture of his platform a necessity in your eyes?
I mean, it's not. But he has assets and liabilities, right? Right now his liabilities vastly outweigh his assets. So it's unjust to deny his creditors access to his assets. He can keep his house and a car, I guess. Or whatever is normal/typical assets to be preserved in bankruptcy. But his interest in Infowars is not an inalienable right.
He has free speech, freer speech than any generation before him. He could broadcast a new show from his personal cell phone and it would be dynamite production value compared to AM radio shows that have been used in decades past (and still used today). He can even resume saying things about Sandy Hook victims that he walked back during the trial. He just risks new liabilities if he does that.