All I can say is try that in court. There is a reason the offenses of slander and libel exist. They are incredibly well thought out laws and well supported by precedence, common sense, and logic. Words can be every bit as dangerous as a sword, and Alex Jones is finding that out. It's actually quite black and white why it's not okay to slander and libel and why those who do it should have to pay the price for their offenses. These people had their lives ruined to an extent by Alex Jones and he has to be financially destroyed in order for him to understand, that's why the decision is as high as it is. Freedom of speech is not freedom to slander.

> What damages were actually done here? $50m for "emotional distress" is ridiculous in any context.

Let me guess: you don’t have kids

> and only complete idiots think his misinformation has power.

You do realize that the Jones Sandy Hook thing caused the parents in question to be stalked, harassed, and even shot at because Jones platformed this nonsense? And before you say "Well then why won't those people arrested?" the ones that could be identified were, like Wolfgang Halbig: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wolgang-halbig-charged-sandy-...

how is tax money used in a defamation case?

how is it not?

it’s a civil case and not one brought by the government.

Look up Stochastic Terrorism and get back to us.

Are you saying stochastic terrorism should be legal?

Maybe? I don't think Madonna did anything illegal when she suggested someone should blow up the White House, for example. Would that count as stochastic terrorism?

I don't believe that someone should ever be held responsible for the actions of someone else. It seems strange to me that what I'm legally allowed to say is limited based on whether a lunatic is likely to do something stupid.

Also was this even terrorism? The article says they just caused "emotional distress".

But you see the issue with this right? Taking this example. Osama Bin Laden should not have been pursued by the US for 9/11 for years. He did not physically fly an airplane into the twin towers, he just told another group of guys to do it.

Another extreme example. Hitler did not personally gas all the people at Auschwitz, his speech did convince others to do it. If Hitler had survived and was on trail at the Nuremberg trails, should he be found guilty or responsible for the murders at Auschwitz?

Taking less extreme example. A mob bosses doesn't performs hits himself, he tells underlings to do those things.

When your speech is direction in advocating, inciting, or ordering violence and someone does it, the most dangerous part is not the person who carried out the violence, it is the person who could manipulate the other person to do the terrible thing. Jim Jones probably rings a bell here. He didn't after all physically force the poisoned koolaid down the throats of people, but he was able to manipulate lots of people drink it and to poison it.

Now granted, these are all examples of criminal cases, not civil like this one. But the point comes across. There obviously are some forms of speech that should tie responsibility back to a person. In the case of a mob boss who orders a hit. The standard for these are high, which is good, it usually has to be direct with knowing that people will carry it out. So there is a difference where blindingly screaming into the wind to kill the president, that probably isn't going to stick. But when you know you are speaking to people who will carry out your will, then it does.

It's a made up concept of very recent vintage, invented to win an election.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...

I don't think stochastic terrorism should be legal or illegal, I think it's a useless concept we were doing fine without.

> People should be able to monetize lies.

What? No.

> And people should be able to say things about people or companies that might cause a crazy person to do something crazy.

Yeah sure, but that's not the issue here.

> If the parents of Sandy Hook were harassed then the issue here is surely the harassers?

False dilemma.

> The reason I worry about this is because if I believe someone is doing something evil does that mean I now have to stay silent in case some crazy person agrees with what I'm saying and does something crazy?

AJ was accused of defamation. There is free speech protection for alleged defamatory statements. If statement regards a public figure, must be knowing or reckless with regard to truth. If not a public figure, must be at least negligent.

> I suppose I don't really understand what was illegal here.

He defamed the parents by claiming they were crisis actors in the Sandy hook shooting. While perhaps not criminal, it is damaging to their reputation and the victims are entitled to compensation.

> I also think $50m is simply an insane amount of money.

(1) Sure, the defense bar would love you and (2) that what the jury found and (3) those are punitive damages - i.e. damages set to punish the defamer. $50m in damages need not be done and can be multiples of actual without any constitutional issues.

> What damages were actually done here?

Alex Jones harmed the reputation of the parents and families related to the Sandy Hook shooting.

> $50m for "emotional distress" is ridiculous in any context.

This is more of punishment than compensation. Personally, I can get on board for especially bad actors, but to each their own.

> To those who agree with this, could you help me understand what Alex Jones did here that's any difference to what someone like Joe Rogan does when he accuses individuals like Klaus Schwab of being involved in some global conspiracy?

I mean to start, Klaus Schwab is a public figure so the bar for fault is higher. Also, Schwab might figure that it is not worth suing.

> Is it simply that Joe Rogan tends to accuse people with some meaningful about of fame evil conspiracies?

Idk I don't listen to Joe Rogan lol.

> And if so, what level of fame does someone have to have before it's legal to say what you think about them in public?

I mean if you are flat out lying and know you are lying - basically never. But if you are acting in good faith you have some protection. Just look up defamation on wikipedia - it's not rocket science.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm kind of shocked that so many people agree with this so it's really helpful to better understand peoples perspectives on this.

I think part of the issue here is probably that we hold different views in regards to freedom of speech, and my mine are admittedly quite extreme. I disagree with libel laws, for example. I don't believe anyone has a right to a reputation, but I do think they have a right to speech. To address some of the points you made in regards to legality, I do understand that what Alex Jones did could be seen as illegal in the US, I think what I'm less clear on is where the lines are drawn and why what he done specifically is so bad that it warranted a $50m fine.

Alex Jones, like or not, owns a media company and media companies often do lie about people. An example that comes to mind is that Kyle Rittenhouse had some very subjective and nasty things said about him by the media and by people with large followings online (perhaps deservingly, idk). Many media orgs implied, or outright said that he was a white supremacist. And I think we can probably agree that isn't good for Rittenhouse's reputation. So I what I don't understand how it's okay for a large authoritative media company like MSNBC to imply Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist without evidence, but Alex Jones with his relatively small following can't suggest Sandy Hook was a hoax?

Am I miss-understanding something here, or were these media orgs also potentially breaking libel law?

Did those media outlets state that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist as a factual statement? Admittedly I don’t follow the mainstream news outlets that much, but I never recall seeing that. Some opinion columnists might have wrote an opinion that he was a white supremacist, but that is protected speech. It’s also protected for news organizations to report when other notable people call Rittenhouse a white supremacist. They’d also be protected if they called him a white supremacist and they had evidence, like finding him writing the 14 words. But stating lies as facts when you either know their lies or have reason to suspect they’re lies and don’t check (reckless disregard for the truth) opens you up to defamation.

Defamation is actually very hard to prove. News organizations have been hit for defamation before but they typically don’t report in a way that they make factual claims they can’t prove. That’s why you often see news call politicians lies “incorrect statements” rather than lies.

Now, Jones elected to not comply with discovery and, as a result, defaulted on his lawsuit. Therefore we don’t know if he would have been found liable for defamation had he made a good faith effort to comply with the court. But we do know that the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories were lies, and we have good reason to believe Alex knew or suspected that based on his own statements and evidence produced during the depositions.

> Alex Jones, like or not, owns a media company and media companies often do lie about people. An example that comes to mind is that Kyle Rittenhouse had some very subjective and nasty things said about him by the media and by people with large followings online (perhaps deservingly, idk). Many media orgs implied, or outright said that he was a white supremacist.

I just searched for anyone here mentioning about the establishment, mainstream media, politician(s) (including a democrat presidential candidate at the time) posting libellous remarks about Kyle Rittenhouse without evidence, even before the trial and was afterwards acquitted and of all comments, only yours came up highlighting this.

Interesting isn't it how everyone mysteriously and instantly forgotten about that since now Alex Jones is the villain of the week?

> So I what I don't understand how it's okay for a large authoritative media company like MSNBC to imply Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist without evidence, but Alex Jones with his relatively small following can't suggest Sandy Hook was a hoax?

> Am I miss-understanding something here, or were these media orgs also potentially breaking libel law?

You are not mis-understanding anything. The hypocrisy of the mainstream media around defamation of Rittenhouse shows that once they believe they can get away with it, they will do it again and again to anyone else. They are looking for villains to make stories out of others and will spread those lies or defamation for profit. In general, No-one should be able to get away with that without paying fines or damages for defamation.

For smaller media companies like Jones's Infowars was sued for this and his response to Sandy Hook was indefensible to begin with so he should just pay the fine and it should also apply even to mainstream media who should not get away with their unfounded libellous nonsense towards Rittenhouse. I'd expect him to be filing defamation cases against them.

>> People should be able to monetize lies.

>What? No.

He was obviously arguing from a standpoint that there shouldn't be a law against that specifically (there isn't), due to the implications such a law would have.

Yes, but I think I probably could have been clearer. I don't think drug companies should be able to lie about the effectiveness of their products, for example.

What I mean is that I don't think it should be illegal to say what you think about something as an individual, even if you're lying. If you're trying to sell a product then you I don't think you should be able to lie about what the product does, but you should be free to lie about how much you like it.

> I also think $50m is simply an insane amount of money.

To you it is, but Alex Jones is very well off:

- "Alex Jones worth up to $270m, expert says, as family seeks punitive damages" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/05/sandy-hook-f...

- "Bernard Pettingill told the court that records indicate Jones withdrew $62m for himself from his company in 2021 as his legal troubles grew." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62444302

- "his and Free Speech Systems’ combined net worth likely fell between $135 million and $270 million." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/us/alex-jones-finances.ht...

> What damages were actually done here?

Most of the amount is to punish and deter, not to compensate the parents.

- "The punitive damages are meant to act as a deterrent, and to stop Jones from repeating his offence."

- "[Punitive damages] are awarded when compensatory damages — the money given to the injured party — are deemed to be insufficient. [... They] are specifically designed to punish defendants whose conduct is considered grossly negligent or intentional. Punitive damages are also referred to as exemplary damages as they are intended to set an example to deter others from committing similar acts." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/punitive-damages.asp

$1m would be a big punishment to you, but too little to punish Alex Jones, who can apparently withdraw $62m from their own company in a year. Jones' estimated net worth was almost certainly a factor in the amount, along with an assessment of just how awful and grossly negligent his behaviour was.

> I worry about this is because if I believe someone is doing something evil does that mean I now have to stay silent in case some crazy person agrees with what I'm saying and does something crazy?

There's a big difference between you saying it to a few friends you think are stable, and building up a lucrative, commercial media empire to broadcast your for-massive-profit message to huge numbers of random people, when you know that many of them believe what you say very seriously, and saying to them over, over and again that someone who looks like a grieving parent is secretly doing somethng evil and something should be done about it.

That said, to some extent yes you should be careful about saying things that have harmful consequences you could reasonably anticipate. It is possible to be grossly negligent with speech. For example if I told you a drink was safe that I knew contained a poison so that you drank it and then died from the poison, I could not hide behind free speech for that. If you're talking with a friend that you believe will do something crazy if you say certain things, please do be careful what you suggest to them.

> And if so, what level of fame does someone have to have before it's legal to say what you think about them in public?

Obviously subjective and would be determined in a court of law (public figure vs not a public figure). And besides, there are still limits to that regardless. If you publish a damaging lie about a public figure, they can sue you for very large amounts of money as they see fit. For example, if you're the NY Times and you print that a very famous actor is a pedo, and do so without enormous amounts of proof, prepare for an epic lawsuit that you will lose badly.

> For example, if you're the NY Times and you print that a very famous actor is a pedo, and do so without enormous amounts of proof, prepare for an epic lawsuit that you will lose badly.

did this happen? i thought not being able to say whatever you wanted about public figures was a uk thing