I'm just talking about the decision by the court and legal basis of that decision.
Alex Jones - Two Stops Past Barking?
- Thread starter existentialist
- Start date
I'm just talking about the decision by the court and legal basis of that decision.
JimW
支那暗杀团
It's not state power though, no ones suing the Pizzagate loons. He's defamed private citizens.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
It's a civil case isn't it? Not a criminal one?
Cid
Proper break this time
What decision? this is a trial for damages. The free speech question has not been examined in this case. You been watching Jones' show or something?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
If you abuse your freedom of speech the recipient has the right to use their freedom of speech to respond which includes legal recourse. What's wrong with that?
teqniq
DisMembered
Which has nothing to do with state power does it? The jury decided the outcome and the judge has based her judgement on that.
Defamation laws are state power. Laws are state power. In fact defamation laws are state power that is usually used to protect the rich and powerful. That this is isn't a case of them being used to protect the rich and powerful doesn't have bearing on future cases.
Cid
Proper break this time
Where do you draw your limits on free speech? at the moment your position appears to be that the press should be able to publish anything they want without consequence.
Honestly nothing at all. I'm as delighted as everyone else they won. The point I was making was about the nature of the courts' decision.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
You would get rid of all legislation?
Cid
Proper break this time
Again, what is this decision?
I think deliberate lies should not prosecuted in general but I acknowledge that defamation should be prosecuted in some cases. I think it goes without saying that defamation law should be reformed, although I really have not got a thought out position on how this should be done especially in the US. I think this situation where somebody says something and somebody else commits some heinous act as a result of it should be thought about very carefully. There's a question of clear incitement and I think that should be open to prosecution but I don't think that this case was treated as a case of incitement.
I might imagine a situation where there's a long protracted strike and a sympathetic paper makes some factually incorrect - arguably lying - claim about management intensions and somebody gets a brick through the window. I certainly wouldn't say that this is the same as this case, but a hostile judge might do.
cesare I hope that answers your question as well
That's an interesting one. I think perjury is treated brutally by the courts because it's about maintaining their authority. I'm not going to say perjury should go unpunished, but I do think the punishment is usually disproportionate. That's giving me flashbacks to the Tommy Sheridan versus the Sun case...
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
So how should someone committing perjury which ends up getting another person convicted of a crime they didn't commit be prosecuted?
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
“Free speech” really is one of those things that turns people into absolute dickheads.
I'm no lawyer or legal reformer and I don't have a worked out position. My understanding is that perjury is viewed as preventative rather than corrective, which should raise alarm bells. It's a punitive measure. That's not to say I'm against it - I have not got a worked out position.
kalidarkone
Bringing YOU round.....
I think what has got peoples backs up- well mine anyway is that you begin by saying you haven't read the thread....wade in, with the possibility that you have not got the correct context - which I don't think you have and carry on regardless, despite people suggesting you read first, comment later.
You are arrogant. I'm glad you recognise that, because from where I'm sitting It just looks as if all you care about is getting your two pence worth in.
If you are going to properly engage then it's really important imo that you read the thread, or at least the last few pages before commenting.
This particular subject- The Sandy Hook shootings- are extremely emotive and I think you made a mistake raising your point.
I think you are going to have to get better at reading the room if you want people to engage with you seriously.
Also your point regarding freedom of speech would probably do better in a thread specifically about that and in a wider context.
You risk alienating yourself.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
I suppose the question, really, is whether you think this case extends State power over free speech .
It's certainly a maintaining of State power, as the case underlines its role as arbiter and reinforces the idea that its systems can be relied on to deliver just recompense for an inflicted injury. I don't think it extends that power however, inasmuch as it's pretty much a straightforward defamation case, resting on well established law, brought by private citizens. There's not been any particular intervention aimed at a politically advantageous outcome that I've seen.
From an anti-State perspective, obviously the ideal would be not to use the State at all. But these people aren't anarchists, they're just working with the social compact as they understand it and as it currently exists. We may want to one day being about changes to that compact, or even bypass it, but we're certainly not in a position to do so here.
The case is not specifically concerning in that sense, it's not opening the door to anything that didn't previously exist, it's a reproduction of the status quo.
It's certainly a maintaining of State power, as the case underlines its role as arbiter and reinforces the idea that its systems can be relied on to deliver just recompense for an inflicted injury. I don't think it extends that power however, inasmuch as it's pretty much a straightforward defamation case, resting on well established law, brought by private citizens. There's not been any particular intervention aimed at a politically advantageous outcome that I've seen.
From an anti-State perspective, obviously the ideal would be not to use the State at all. But these people aren't anarchists, they're just working with the social compact as they understand it and as it currently exists. We may want to one day being about changes to that compact, or even bypass it, but we're certainly not in a position to do so here.
The case is not specifically concerning in that sense, it's not opening the door to anything that didn't previously exist, it's a reproduction of the status quo.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
I hope they win
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
What about holding corporate power to account? Alex Jones is a corporation worth at least $250 million. (Some have put his wealth at $400 million.) In terms of weight class, these middle-class families are fighting well about their weight to hold him accountable. For years, the defamation has continued, while Jones's texts show that he knew what he was saying was a lie. If you've ever listened to him, he goes beyond what I would call free speech. He tells people to hate and then points and says "sick 'em." Its knowlingly stirring up a lynch mob and turning them loose (and he's still doing it to these people as this trial has continued). Do you think that forming a lynch mob with lies is "free speech"?
andysays
Love and solidarity
This is a reasonable concern, but if you take the trouble to actually read what this case is about, and what exceptions the US constitution already makes to "free speech", you will find that there's nothing here which genuinely deserves that concern, it's just more shit from Jones which you appear to have swallowed uncritically.
I find that sometimes it's worth putting your head above the parapet and say the thing people aren't saying. I know I've annoyed a lot of people but I don't think it went badly. Nobody has actually been hurt by what I've said and as it settles down I think there's been a bit of thought about it (not the same as agreement with me of course). But yes I could have done this better.
I don't begrudge the families at all using the legal system available to them to protect themselves. My understanding of the case is that it's not focused on the incitement but the recklessness of claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax and that the parents are liars.
kalidarkone
Bringing YOU round.....
I think it's about where you put it. There is nothing wrong with what you are asking to be considered, but this thread is not the place.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
You can't really separate the two in the effect it has had on the Sandy Hook families. This is a case of a large media corporation (Jones) deliberately doing harm to others to make money. The forensic accountant said that Jones was raking in $800,000 a day in the weeks after Sandy Hook. I don't see it much different from a company dumping toxic sludge to make a buck.
That it's in the politics forums makes me think it's open to a bit of cut of thrust, maybe wrongly. Thinking about it the real concern is if I'm putting off people posting here, and I apologies for that if that's happening.
Similar threads
