does alex jones have free speech?

There are an awful lot of conspiracy theories out there. The overwhelming majority of them are complete and utter BS. Surely with all of these there can always be a party that claims to be aggrieved from the bogus narratives.

I do not see it as the proper role of our civil justice system to get involved. I do not see that as a positive direction for society. Society does not need more lawyers. We need less.

 

The point is I believe since you chose this case as an example of excessive court awards your opinion is in a way tied to what Jones did. You see whether you care about Jones or not what Jones did is what possessed the Jury to make the award so big as a message to Jones.
The families will never collect that award probably since Jones will be insolvent before he pays up.

 

What is enough?
Who knows, that's what a jury of peers is for.
To make a decision.
It can be appealed.

 

Then how do you punish such a fecal matter eater?

 

As I just said to another poster...

There are an awful lot of conspiracy theories out there. The overwhelming majority of them are complete and utter BS. Surely with all of these there can always be a party that claims to be aggrieved from the bogus narratives.

I do not see it as the proper role of our civil justice system to get involved. I do not see that as a positive direction for society. Society does not need more lawyers. We need less.

 

Take it up with SCOTUS. They ruled on this in the 60s. Perhaps Jones can take this to them and get the rule changed.

If you had a child die, and while you are actively grieving, your neighbor puts a sign on his lawn that says, “FAW is lying. His child isn’t dead. He’s being paid to say that,” do you think you’d shrug that off? That’s what Jones did, leaving a bunch of grieving parents having to deal with death & rape threats.

That is not okay.

 

Oh that is obscene misunderstanding - "Damage" .. what "Damage" . and how does that damage equate to 900 million dollars.

This is mind bending coersion against speech .. he might as well have killed some one .. the financial penalty having no relation to the Rule of law .. "Punishment fitting the crime"

Tell me of this damage ... the latest update in the world of fallacious utilitarianism.

 

I just dont think it is the civil courts job to "punish" the act of being an a**hole.

I see the role of the civil courts as trying to attach a realistic financial settlement to make right whatever wrong is done to victims. I realize there is a "punitive damages" aspect that is always being pushed by the trial lawyers association. The lawyers typically get like 45% in these cases, the largest verdicts are those that attach punitive damages as opposed to actual damages incurred by the victim. They love the punitive damages because then they can get to any ridiculous number of which the lawyers will always be there to collect their 45%. This is why the trial lawyers association fights so hard for these damages.

Some people see this as a good thing. I do not. I do not want to see our civil courts out there punishing offenders. That is the job of the criminal system. The civil system is supposed to be about making the victims whole, not punishing the offender.

 

I would be absolutely livid if that happened. What he said regarding Sandy Hooks was despicable. At no point have I said or implied otherwise. I have analogized it to the weird anti war religious sect that was protesting at the dead soldiers funerals. These are despicable acts. But that is 100% beside the point.

 

Well the proper role of the justice system is outside the scope of whatever the topic of this thread was.

 

The JUSTICE system is there to make the victims "whole" and to insure that egregious behavior such as that done by Alex Jones is not repeated.

 

It’s totally the point. You are not allowed to use your free speech to lie about private citizens. Full stop.

 

I believe what he is trying to say is that "punitive damages" are a form of punishment. Punishment should be part of a criminal trial not a civil trial. A civil trial should be simply allowing the victim to recover monetary damages as restitution for the damage done to them. Any punishment should be part of a criminal trial.

 

This entire time my argument has been that this is an example of the civil justice system run amok, and you have been vehemently arguing against that notion.

Whether you understood it at the time or not, you were in fact arguing the proper role of the civil justice system. I am not sure why exactly you see yourself as the arbiter of what related tangent is or is not in "the scope" of the topic of this thread, ESPECIALLY when by your own admission you do not even know what that topic is.

 

Take it up with SCOTUS. They ruled on this decades ago.

 

There is a very legitimate argument that has existed for years regarding the proper role of our civil system. The trial Lawyers lobby works very hard to push the importance of punitive damages as opposed to the damages aimed at making the aggrieved whole again. The giant verdicts are always the punitive damages worked so hard to achieve by the trial lawyers lobby.

Some people may see this as a good thing. I most assuredly do not. This is about expanding the profession of law and enriching their coffers as they collect every bit as much as the victims. I think that is a very bad thing for society. For anyone that has ever been involved with civil lawyers, they know exactly what I am talking about.

 

I just dont remember other conspiracy theorists being sued. Do you?

Seems like a slippery slope to me. Should Neil Armstrong be able to sue the moon landing deniers for defamation of character?

 

He wasn’t sued because he called Sandy Hook a hoax.

 

If Armstrong can prove harm then sure.

Here's the deal.
1. Jones defaulted on liability. He refused to comply with court orders so there was no trial to determine if he was liable he was found liable by default.
2. The hearings in Texas and Connecticut were about damages. You don't want to be hit with massive punitive damages then I guess rule #1 would be "Don't piss off the court by openly defying the court"

 

I was joking about not knowing what the topic is. You must recall it was about the right of free speech which logically leads to arguing about the limitations of free speech vs can speech be abridged, should it be. I think you are driving the topic to the land of the esoteric.

 

I've set aside the issue of what is and what is not covered under the rubric of 'Freedom of speech'. Instead, I've considered how an educated citizen* should act, including making his/her views known. In this, I'm speaking only for myself. I've no interest in seeking to impose my views upon others.

A responsible member of a society would, I believe, conduct him/herself so as not to injure other members. There must, of necessity, be a cut-out for actions which restrain some members from specific actions such as, say, murder. But that aside, consideration of what one says -- self-censorship, if you please -- should be deeply ingrained.

This, based upon what I've read, is not the case with Mr. Alex Jones.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

* One who is aware of the history of his/her society and the place of a member within that society.

 

By calling Sandy Hook a hoax, by extension that means that the people claiming to have lost their kids are phony. The same thing applies to Neil Armstrong.

Neil Armstrong can then make the same claims. they have defamed his lifes work. He has gotten death threats from a couple of the millions of people on twitter etc.

I simply do not believe that getting to this level with nutbag conspiracy theorists is a net positive for society. We do not need to use the court system to silence these nutbags. All that we need is common sense.

 

Armstrong could very easily and even legitimately claim that landing on the moon was his lifes work and that he has been defamed not only by the denial of his achievement, but by the reality that he has been faking the whole thing his entire life. He also could undeniably point to some vague threat or another via Twitter etc. This is all par for the course in today's world.

Do we really need the court system to address nutbag conspiracy theorists? I think not. All that is required is a modicum of common sense. The last thing this country needs is an expansion of civil litigation.

 

That in your mind was a joke? Wow....good one !! (sarcasm)

The wisdom of shutting down that free speech via civil litigation is most certainly a valid tangent off of that topic.

 

Armstrong has not suffered any serious harm with the insane moon landing conspiracies.
Sandy Hook parents, on the other hand, have had their lives turned into a living hell because of the BS. pushed by Jones.