Again, you have never had the first amendment right to defame a person. Be mean, sure. Defame? Nope. Glad I could help.
Don’t those Westboro folks just kind of just show up at those funerals and picket with hateful messages? Those messages aren’t directed at anyone specific, and that’s probably how they “get away with it” under the 1st amendment without being sued. It’s evil and hateful, but technically they are just picketing. Are they libeling anyone specific? Seems to me they just move from one “appearance” to the next and that would likely be their argument if they were “sued” by a victim. Their message is evil, but I’m not aware of them incessantly harassing the same person or family over and over. On the other hand, Jones incessantly made shit up about these Sandy Hook victims and their families. That’s called libel, which people are not necessarily free to do under the 1st amendment. This guy didn’t just overlook a fact or slip up, he was incessant about it. Probably one of the most blatant defamation and libel cases imaginable. Considering the horror these families went through, and this guy perpetually put them through, it’s pretty sick you would effectively take the side of Alex Jones.
no. This case has nothing to do with any of your nonsense hypotheticals. What Jones said is actionable defamation. None of the other situations you posit are. Although maybe BLM would have a case against someone who said something about them, but I don’t think they’re going to sue someone who says they didn’t burn down any buildings
Do you enjoy the circus (or did)? PT Barnum said famously, "A sucker is born every minute." So, you want the circus to go bankrupt because they say and do things that are either not factual or they profited immensely from it? How about Apple or Microsoft? There are a LOT of opportunists out there. Show me where he actually yelled "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I think some folks WANT to believe he did. I am not supporting Jones. I could not care less about the man. I am most concerned with our deciding to apply and suspend the US Constitution willy-nilly because some of us have our panties in a bunch. That is DAMN SERIOUS territory we are getting into.
See my reply to you. The first amendment doesn't protect you from defamation judgments when you defame a person (lying in a manner that causes material harm). Alex Jones committed defamation. System worked exactly like it is supposed to work.
Defamation is right up there with malice in the media. It is a noble idea but it takes a HELL of a lot of corroborating evidence to win the case. The NY Times and the Washington Post (heck, even the tabloid press) has been gaming the system for years. Why are they "well they tried to do well, bless their souls" and Jones is "he deserves to die"? Again, Kansas protests can do it, he can't because he panders to the stupid? That ain't the way the system is supposed to operate. It is a sickness.
You are rationalizing the "nobility" of your side. That is all. I never said BLM in fact burned down these buildings and some folks were inside and died. What you ARE doing is saying to BLM "no harm no foul" and I am saying...again...that isn't the way it works. Harm is being uncivil and not the flavor of the month.
No, I’m just pointing out that your BLM hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with the Alex Jones defamation case. Nor does the “shouting fire” hypothetical - two completely different exceptions to freedom of speech
What is "malice in the media?" It does require evidence. Thankfully, that existed in this case. There is no death penalty for defamation. He deserves to pay money. And the difference is that the NY Times and Washington Post do things like investigate, which can be wrong and lead to the need to correct the record, even when done in good faith, unlike Jones who just flat out made up something out of a complete lack of investigation or evidence. Makes it a lot easier to prove defamation. The Westboro protesters can do awful things because they don't actually defame individuals. Jones did. He is allowed to pander to stupid. He is not allowed to defame people.
As I inferred, you can nail his ass big time. Just as soon as we nail the NY Times and the Washington Post for their agenda-driven "journalism", facts be damned.
Again, not liking a story because you think it is biased (in your opinion) is not defamation. That is not what Jones was found responsible for this week.
Defamation and malice come with HUGE standards to achieve for successful prosecution. As long as the NY Times, the Washington Post, and others, can get away with it and Jones can not then this is a kangaroo court. And that is DAMN dangerous.
Notice that it isn’t actually “the government” stifling anybody’s speech. This is not an affront to the 1st amendment. This is a civil suit between two parties. One one side, Alex Jones spread the lies that the families of these mass shooting victims were “crisis actors”. On the other side, the families who claim that they are NOT crisis actors. The liar vs. the defamed. It’s really quite simple. Jones used his platform to spread lies. His actions caused real harm. The verdict is just affirmation as to the amount of egregious harm caused. It’s no different from any other “defamation case” between two parties. In America you can sue for any reason, provided you find a lawyer that thinks it’s a worthwhile case. Was Johnny Depp “stifling” the speech of Amber Heard? How about Sandmann vs. WaPo (or any of the other media he sued)? 1st amendment doesn’t mean frauds and liars are free of CIVIL consequences, and that’s what this is. One party holding another accountable in civil court.
I believe what you are espousing is akin to the fox in charge of the hen house. You can't prove something that no one is looking for.
This is civil court. Go find a person that NY Times and Washington Post defamed and sue them and see where the facts of the case lead the court. Unfortunately for you, not liking a news article because you think it is biased is not defamation and is, in fact, protected speech. Find somebody materially damaged by an intentional lie by either outlet and you will have an actual case. Good luck.
And the NY Times and the Washington Post are now sanctimonious government-eques? As I said, nail their butts because they do the exact same thing and THEN nail Jones'. It won't hurt my feelings. You think it okay to bankrupt anyone because they are scumbags? Using the courts and not your own pocketbooks?
You made my point. The fox (those folks) are in charge of the hen house (truth and malevolent intent).
