Alex Jones - Two Stops Past Barking?
- Thread starter existentialist
- Start date
Cid
Proper break this time
Yes, for example you can chose not to have your children murdered in a mass shooting, and if they are you can chose to keep quiet about it and avoid exposing yourself to unnecessary collateral damage.
This is what I was trying to get at yesterday, but Spandex did a better job of summing it up. Conflict mediation, of which law is a form, is always going to come down to conflicting rights and/or responsibilities. It is really what's at the heart of how we do these things... e.g we have a standard of proof in criminal law that makes it very hard to bring prosecutions for certain types of offence; we favour the rights of a defendant. Those problems will be there in any system of mediation, even in a putative non-hierarchical society.
If you start making 'freedom from' conditional you can go down very dangerous roads... Witness the current attack on right to a private life (freedom from state interference).
There are laws which police people harming other people which include laws which restrict free speech eg. defamation and incitement laws. And I'm willing to accept those, though I'm very wary about the former.
Looking at more broader "bad behaviour" there are laws against causing a disturbance. I don't have a worked out position on that, I think they can certainly be abused by the police. I would be interested in what other people think.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Jones isn't a standard case of poor behaviour though, he's a powerful figure with a major political media platform. He can't be brought to heel through say, the social pressure of his community or peers because his community is a global cult which indulges his every brain fart and gives him Fuck You money to do what he does. And even this measure, expensive though it's proving to be, won't shut him up, at best it'll curb his tendency to libel people if he thinks they might take him to court over it. The problem in fact is not that he can be sued, it's that people of his ilk can threaten and silence people who don't have his money with the same process. Talking about this case as being a free speech issue is a red herring in that sense.
I think a key consideration in any discussion about the principle of free speech has to be that speech creates reality, it doesn’t just describe it. Even if we leave to one side the more philosophical constructionist debates about the nature of physical reality, it is surely unarguable that social reality is not something that objectively exists? Rather, it is a function of people’s perceptions, subjectivities and understanding all filtered through the lens of the culture used to forge their selfhood.
What all that means is that words create our reality. There’s no such thing as “free” speech in terms of effect, only in terms of the right to say it. And that means that the reality created by the speech should be fair game as part of considering whether to grant that right. To start with the absolute right as the axiomatic starting point is no more sensible than to start with the absolute right to any and all action as being an axiomatic starting point. If you’re fine saying that physical violence is, by principle, prohibited then the same principle applies to the creation of violent realities through other means.
What all that means is that words create our reality. There’s no such thing as “free” speech in terms of effect, only in terms of the right to say it. And that means that the reality created by the speech should be fair game as part of considering whether to grant that right. To start with the absolute right as the axiomatic starting point is no more sensible than to start with the absolute right to any and all action as being an axiomatic starting point. If you’re fine saying that physical violence is, by principle, prohibited then the same principle applies to the creation of violent realities through other means.
Bingoman
Well-Known Member
Does he have that much money?
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Trickledown fuckwitonomics
Cid
Proper break this time
Yes... somewhere around $270m according to a forensic accountant who gave evidence I think. Although it's a bit nebulous. He has a lot of shell companies etc, though I imagine they're badly set up.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
Jones isn't being sued because he broke a speech law, but because his speech caused pain and suffering to others. He has not been prosecuted for speaking, but for the consequences of his lies.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
This would seem to suggest that women have more power than men if you look at rights which are currently loudly contested in the US, but I can’t discount some availability bias on my part.
Cid
Proper break this time
This would seem to suggest that women have more power than men if you look at rights which are currently loudly contested in the US, but I can’t discount some availability bias on my part.
Not quite sure of your reasoning there?
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Can everyone stop trying to bring facts to an I-don't-know-any-of-the-relevant-details-but-here's-my-hot-take fuck-fest? It's like putting germolene in the lube.
Cid
Proper break this time
I know my rights, you can't stop me.
JimW
支那暗杀团
Heard he's just taken a bit of a financial hit.
bellaozzydog
rolling turds in glitter
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Thought the reasoning was simple enough, but we may just be applying different examples.
It was suggested that the powerful prioritise positive (freedom to) rights over negative (freedom from) rights.
The first examples I thought of (freedom from Government interference in the disposal of property, freedom to perform all manner of financial transactions in the absence of any scrutiny, freedom from intrusive media scrutiny, abortion rights, protection against enslavement, equal access to the law), seem like much more of a mixed bag.
Like I said, though, this is just what came to mind first.
Plus, when you have a complex society, the distinction between positive and negative rights can get a little fuzzy (eg. the right to abortion could be argued as a freedom to choose to about or a freedom from being subject to State law interference in healthcare).
Last edited:
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I think he was actually being sued for defamation.
Defamation is pain and suffering caused by (untrue) speech, though. So the statement is correct.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Definition in US law looks clear thay it is reputational damage. No pain and suffering needs to be inflicted. You could sue for defamation on financial grounds alone.
Reputational damage is a form of pain and suffering
Cid
Proper break this time
How do you get from this to 'women have more power than men'? Abortion rights come under bodily autonomy; freedom from state interference in private life.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
That is not uncontested but this is part of what I said about rights not breaking simply into positive or negative regardless of perspective.
What I meant wasn’t that women have more power than men, I was saying that the nature of the set of rights that came to mind first suggested it’s a very mixed bag in terms of the balance of positive / negative rights are prioritised by the powerful / powerless.
I also said that from the first few rights I could think of, the relationship seemed to skew in an opposite direction to suggested. Maybe something for another thread if we wanted to analyse rights more exhaustively.
Last edited:
bellaozzydog
rolling turds in glitter
Has no one explained tort law yet
Cid
Proper break this time
By the religious right, yes.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
He tort he could say what he liked but he cont.
bellaozzydog
rolling turds in glitter
He’s been a very torty boy
stdP
One Swiss dinosaur in Polly Gosling's anorak hood
I would have gotten to it eventually, but seeing as the point being argued eventually turned out to be "courts are a tool of the state and therefore bad, hence Alex Jones should be able to say what he likes no matter who he fucks up along the way" I didn't think it was worth the effort attempting to bring any more reality in to the equation.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Wow, even as a last ditch bit of desperation that’s pretty poor. Not sure whether it’s better or worse than just throwing your hands up and admitting to a fair cop.
Similar threads
