Alex Jones - Two Stops Past Barking?

[story]

This says that slander and defamation is a human rights issue under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Libel and slander – the distinction in defamation - DAS Law

Defamation is the expression of an untrue insinuation against a person’s reputation. But what is the current law on defamation? DAS Law’s Saiful Ahmed explains.

www.daslaw.co.uk

According to the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 10(2), defamation is one of the valid reasons for limiting a person’s freedom of expression.

So it’s okay to limit freedom of speech if the expression of said free speech can be said to be slander /defamation.

Does this apply in America too?

(I’ve had a quick look and can’t find anything that clarifies it for me. Rather than spending time fossicking around in the internet I thought I’d just ask if anyone here already knows.)





(I need to get off here and go do something else but Im following and thinking. Knotted barrelled in like a drunk in big boots but I now think it’s a valid question and raises things I’ve pondered over the years. What do our anarchists say about this stuff?)


(Still think AJ has been caught bang to rights and should be stopped and also should stfu)

 

[8ball]

This says that slander and defamation is a human rights issue under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Libel and slander – the distinction in defamation - DAS Law

Defamation is the expression of an untrue insinuation against a person’s reputation. But what is the current law on defamation? DAS Law’s Saiful Ahmed explains.

www.daslaw.co.uk

So it’s okay to limit freedom of speech if the expression of said free speech can be said to be slander /defamation.

Does this apply in America too?

Yeah, applies in USA too according to something I was reading earlier.

This isn’t the same source but hopefully does as well:

First Amendment - Permissible restrictions on expression

Despite the broad freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, there are some historically rooted exceptions. First, the government may generally restrict the time, place, or manner of speech, if the restrictions are unrelated to what the speech says and leave people with enough...

www.britannica.com

 

[story]

So if freedom from defamation and slander is considered a basic human right here and over there, what does that do for Knotted ‘s position?

Is it a basic human right? If not why not?

 

[8ball]

So if freedom from defamation and slander is considered a basic human right here and over there, what does that do for Knotted ‘s position?

Is it a basic human right? If not why not?

I’m not sure whether it’s considered a basic human right over there, just that defamation is considered an exception to First Amendment protections.

 

[Rob Ray]

What do our anarchists say about this stuff?

Depends on the anarchist. I've already said a couple of things but short version: There's no such thing as "true" free speech, deliberations on what the limits are shouldn't be overseen by the State, however in the absence of any counterpower able to replace the role of arbiter we can't really expect people to ditch one of the few measures which actually enable the powerful to be held to account by ordinary citizens. In that sense it's neither surprising that they did so, nor particularly concerning, as nothing about the case extends State power into new arenas. But sure a debate can be had as to how the State's role in such arbitration can/should/would be reduced.

 

[8ball]

Not sure that article has aged too well. What was the year of publishing?

 

[Rob Ray]

2017. The subjects it addresses are a few years old but the logic is essentially the same.

 

[Cid]

So if freedom from defamation and slander is considered a basic human right here and over there, what does that do for Knotted ‘s position?

Is it a basic human right? If not why not?

What it means is that the right to freedom of speech is a qualified right. So it's not exactly that not being defamed is a right in itself, more that legal scholarship considers it a justified limit to a right.

I'd recommend Tom Bingham's The Rule of Law for a rundown of the basics on these principles, from the perspective of liberal legal scholarship (by which I mean you don't have to agree with everything, it's just a good summary of a widely accepted position). It's not particularly long, and quite an easy read. Should dig it out myself.

 

[8ball]

2017. The subjects it addresses are a few years old but the logic is essentially the same.

I don’t have problems with most of the arguments as such, but I don’t think the penultimate paragraph would be written that way nowadays.

Some interesting stuff about Germany in there.

 

[Knotted]

So if freedom from defamation and slander is considered a basic human right here and over there, what does that do for Knotted ‘s position?

Is it a basic human right? If not why not?

Not much. My position allows for freedom from defamation and slander. Details of this case aside, my position should be either middle of the road or tending toward statist authoritarian on these questions, as I'm not an anarchist. I've just got a bog standard Marxist position on this. Pretty much all strands of the left (plus liberalism) excluding out and out stalinists used to be pro-free speech (with the usual exceptions to it). This may be more a UK thing, but everybody used to be highly critical of defamation law as it stood, just because it's absolutely shocking.

 

[8ball]

Maybe the left just gave up on persuasion by any kind of argument, much like everyone else did.

 

[Cid]

Not much. My position allows for freedom from defamation and slander. Details of this case aside, my position should be either middle of the road or tending toward statist authoritarian on these questions, as I'm not an anarchist. I've just got a bog standard Marxist position on this. Pretty much all strands of the left (plus liberalism) excluding out and out stalinists used to be pro-free speech (with the usual exceptions to it). This may be more a UK thing, but everybody used to be highly critical of defamation law as it stood, just because it's absolutely shocking.

That's because UK laws put the burden of proof onto the defendant... i.e if someone brings a defamation suit against you, they just need to show that they what you did amounted to defamation, and they suffered a loss as a consequence. It's then on you to show what you published was, in fact, true (to oversimplify). The reason people know about it is precisely because it's an unusual restriction to freedom of expression.

er... to make that slightly clearer: in the US the plaintiff has to show that a statement was false and defamatory. In the UK the claimant (plaintiff) just has to show that a statement was defamatory. iirc.

 

[petee]

It's a matter of whether you want the state to police truth telling.

it's a matter of the destruction of the lives of people who have had their children slaughtered, in service of a rightwing agenda, using slander and lying to achieve that.
fuck your abstractions.
let me try to bang it through your skull, this is a defamation lawsuit, not a matter of "policing truth".

 

[Cid]

Criticism of UK libel law isn't just a left thing incidentally, it's a notoriously bad system that has lead to jurisdiction shopping/SLAPP actions. I think there may be some moves to reform underway, but not looked recently.

 

[Knotted]

Depends on the anarchist. I've already said a couple of things but short version: There's no such thing as "true" free speech, deliberations on what the limits are shouldn't be overseen by the State, however in the absence of any counterpower able to replace the role of arbiter we can't really expect people to ditch one of the few measures which actually enable the powerful to be held to account by ordinary citizens. In that sense it's neither surprising that they did so, nor particularly concerning, as nothing about the case extends State power into new arenas. But sure a debate can be had as to how the State's role in such arbitration can/should/would be reduced.

Yep this:

In the second, it effectively asks where State tolerance should begin and end. And the answer there is that while some lefties are silly enough to call for State repression of bigots, the more savvy are aware that any weapon given to the State is one that will, eventually, be turned on us as well, and thus should never, ever, be advocated.

I've always consider that to be the general received wisdom on the left. (Not that that means I'm right on this case of course)

 

[Knotted]

it's a matter of the destruction of the lives of people who have had their children slaughtered, in service of a rightwing agenda, using slander and lying to achieve that.
fuck your abstractions.

I didn't quote, but that was a response to story, not a general statement on the trial.

 

[8ball]

I've always consider that to be the general received wisdom on the left. (Not that that means I'm right on this case of course)

I agree that this was the case at one time.

 

[Rob Ray]

I don’t think the penultimate paragraph would be written that way nowadays

I'd say you can still talk shite with your mates down the pub or whatnot without people jumping in to denounce, but certainly the line has continued to blur online.

 

[Dystopiary]

Hypothetical scenario: I inherited a very well trained, highly intelligent, physically powerful and loyal dog; if someone pisses me off I can extend my right to free speech by saying "Get 'em!" to my dog, which I know the dog understands to mean "go for the throat and do not stop until a full minute after attackee stops moving." If anyone objects they're not a true anarchist.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Does he have that much money?

The forensic accountant who testified at the trial said Jones was worth upwards of $250 million, and the owner of multiple shell companies. Jones claims he's worth a mere $5 million. Since he was collecting $800,000 a day at one point, he's either really, really, really bad with money, or he's a liar. Given past history, I'd go with the latter.

 

[story]

I didn't quote, but that was a response to story, not a general statement on the trial.

This is why this discussion really needed another thread petee

I’m more anarchist than I am anything else although I’m too lackadaisical/foolish to read enough to then wear a proper label.

I’m not sure I see much distinction between what Rob Ray is saying and what Knotted ended up saying. But I feel more aligned with RR, maybe because his posts were more about the underlying theory than about this particular case.

Where AJ is concerned, I’m quite comfortable with some arbiter (in this case the state) acting on behalf of all those who think he’s a foul despicable and harmful force for cruelty who should be curbed. He cannot stopped in his tracks or taken out (because we can’t actually make him cease speaking freely or make him disappear) so let him be ruined in some other way.

For me, anarchy doesn’t mean absence of all regulation, it means allowing water to find it’s own level. In this instance let AJ drown in his own lies.











No doubt, when this place was more of a bear pit I’d have been ripped a new one for the sin of this (literally) wish-washy post, but I hope I’m forgiven for speaking in a way that’s natural to me, and hope I’m understood.

 

[8ball]

Fucking liberals shitting up the place again!!

 

[edcraw]

Good podcast from NYT about the trial. Quite upsetting at what a truly awful person he is.

 

[story]

Fucking liberals shitting up the place again!!

You want me to me to just go back to knobbing & sobbing and suburban?

Let the place change without the the sly nudges.
Regardless of the winky face this is the kind of shit makes folks like me back away.

 

[story]

FWIW this place has made me far less liberal than I was.

 

[8ball]

FWIW this place has made me far less liberal than I was.

That’s a good signal that its time to take a break.

 

[8ball]

You want me to me to just go back to knobbing & sobbing and suburban?

Let the place change without the the sly nudges.
Regardless of the winky face this is the kind of shit makes folks like me back away.

That’s a pretty interesting reading of my post.

If for whatever reason you’re feeling a bit prone to ascribing aggressive motivations to posts (I was taking the piss out of the old days and the “liberal baiting”), then I’d agree that maybe doing something less internetty for a bit wouldn’t be a bad thing.

 

[Serge Forward]

FWIW this place has made me far less liberal than I was.

Glad to hear it

 

[Cid]

The latest episode of Knowledge Fight is worth a listen; the two hosts were involved in the trial (because who the fuck else - other than his followers - has sat through that much of Jones' material?) and they've got the lawyers for the plaintiffs giving a kind of debrief.

On damages, caps are likely to be applied... They reckon it will work out to be around a $10m hit to him once the details are ironed out. Though there will be a bunch of complexity around appeals and the bankruptcy.

Importantly seems like the plaintiffs are really happy with the verdict, not so much to do with the damages as having Jones repudiated in such a public way.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Importantly seems like the plaintiffs are really happy with the verdict, not so much to do with the damages as having Jones repudiated in such a public way.

Good luck getting paid. The Goldman family only managed to pry $138,000 out of OJ. I'm sure Jones has lawyers on staff who can hide his money at least as well. If they shuffle it all off to off-shore accounts, as seems likely, tracking it down could prove difficult.