Hacker News Reader

Comment by latexr | Hacker News Reader

> This is dangerously close to making the penalty the loss of his first amendment rights.

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...

View on HN

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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”?

> 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.

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.

You're stretching it. In the US the government can't arrest for causing offense to someone specifically because of the 1st amendment...You can get sued for libel (very high bar and it's notoriously difficult in the US) but you're not going to be rounded up and put into a corrections facility for being offensive.

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...

> for being offensive.

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...

How can you prove that the person sending a death threat was specifically motivated by a specific, broad act of speech? This is an impossible, unenforceable premise. It has no basis in law either in theory or practice.

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?

> are the ones who least understand it.

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 media is routinely used for psyops to bully people into certain policies for profit using known lies with no accountability, either all media companies should be held accountable for this or none should.

I am totally fine with holding all media accountable.

If the Judaical system enforces content regulation selectively, that is objectively worse than pure free speech since it encourages propaganda AND suppresses dissent of that propaganda. Also no one cares what you're ok with, go report some facebook posts if you want to feel like an idea authority.

>If you’re a deliberate liar who provably lies to profit and harm others, you can and should be punished.

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.

Well I hate to break it to you but profiting by lying is the definition of fraud. In general if someone is impacted by your actions you are open to legal ramifications.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud

That's incredibly pedantic. What Alex Jones engaged in was nothing remotely like "fraud". The poster you're replying to is correct, the first amendment does protect "liars".

Defamation is basically lying about someone to damage their reputation. So I don't think that the first amendment gives you the right to lie?

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.

Yeah, that self-policing guild discipline by doctors and lawyers has really worked out well, hasn't it?

You really should read up on these things before you make statements like this.

Have you really never heard of perjury or fraud before?

You don't have a right to lie.

Both of these concepts are specifically defined in law, whereas “lie” is not. You are made of marshmallows! Sue me.

> You are made of marshmallows!

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.

There is no evidence that being made of marshmallows is damaging to one’s reputation, and thus this would not necessarily be classified as defamatory. The law requires proven damage. The details are tricky.

> The law requires proven damage

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.

You seem to have the concepts logically inverted. Mistruth is necessary for defamation but not sufficient. You are quite certainly allowed to lie, generally. You are even allowed to lie about me, and there is no exemption to the recognition of God-granted freedoms for it in the US.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com