6 ms·

i don’t understand how this is not a 1st amendment violation can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other pe

i don’t understand how this is not a 1st amendment violation can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc

defrost 5mo ago
First amendment prevents the federal government from preventing speech or punishing for speech (subject to a few exceptions). This was not that. This was a civil defamation case; the parents bought a case of actual material harm and harrassment of epic proportions before two seperate judges in two seperate states and both courts made the finding that Jones had indeed caused harm and harrassment .. and continued to do so over years.
- mech998877 5mo ago
  With regards to defamation law, the first amendment does result in the USA having a higher bar for prosecution than most countries- GP still has a valid question.
  - lateforwork 5mo ago
    The word "prosecution" implies criminal case brought by the government. This was a civil case brought by the victims. If you mean higher bar for litigation, then maybe this lawsuit and its outcome shows that the bar isn't as high as you think when it comes to defamation?
    - mech998877 5mo ago
      Yes I did mean litigation (didn't know that that term was a distinction learned something today). To my understanding the case outcome is pretty much what I would expect, even considering the first amendment raising the bar. It's also interesting that there's been so many legal shenanigans in the case that it's hard to even keep track of them all.
      - defrost 5mo ago
        The principal legal shenanigan came from Jones and his team - stubbornly refusing to engage with either court via a kind of sovereign citizen "I know my first amendment rights, F- you" vibe. That sealed the case outcome as, IIRC, at least one of the judges just ruled against them for not mounting any defence.
tsimionescu 5mo ago
This is not a case about Sandy Hook the event - it is a defamation case by the victims of that event, that Alex Jones directly attacked. This is the biggest difference - no one is claiming that all of the people who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 attacks were actually actors paid to pretend that they were grieving for their parents and children and friends. No one was encouraged to personally attack said victims and survivors to "expose their lies" because of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Furthermore, defamation law works very differently for claims against public personalities ("Bush did 9/11!") compared to claims against private persons ("this random child shown crying in news reports after her classmates were supposedly killed is actually pretending!"). Also, vague accusations of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy / cover up are far harder to litigate than very clear claims of massive fraud. Finally, the Sandy Hook victims were generally able to show specific damages they suffered, attacks against them by people in their community, because of Jones' actions; Dick Cheney may have been more generally hated because of claims about 9/11 conspiracies, but was not directly harasses in the same way.
- someguyiguess 5mo ago
  That’s sounds like a first amendment violation with more steps.
  - triceratops 5mo ago
    It isn't because there's no government prosecution.
    - jklinger410 5mo ago
      How is a ruling in a civil court not a form of government prosecution? It would be more correct to say that your first amendment rights stop at defaming others.
      - triceratops 5mo ago
        The government didn't bring this civil suit. Ruling on civil disputes is the government's role. That's not what prosecution means.
5129agf 5mo ago
[flagged]
fullshark 5mo ago
This seems like a good faith question to me, Jones clearly operated thinking he was protected under the first amendment, and it was not obvious to me he was going to lose his court case despite morally finding his actions repugnant.
- triceratops 5mo ago
  What does the first amendment have to do with slander, libel, and defamation?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 5mo ago
  The first amendment protects you from the government prosecuting you for the content of your speech. The first amendment does not protect you from the results of your speech, like someone deciding they don't like you because of what you said. That person is free to dislike you for what you said and the first amendment has nothing to do with it. Similarly, if you say things that are untrue and cause damage to others, you may be held civilly liable for the damage if they sue you and convince a jury that you lied with knowledge and intent to lie. The first amendment has nothing to do with this.
GuinansEyebrows 5mo ago
if you're truly interested, please check out the podcast 'Knowledge Fight' which covers alex jones and infowars in stunningly minute detail, including the defamation cases in texas and connecticut. the main host was even called as an expert witness in one of the trials to give testimony about alex jones' involvement and denial in harassing and inciting his listeners to harass the parents and survivors of the shooting.
seattle_spring 5mo ago
> can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc Those "other people" were also Alex Jones.

defrost 5mo ago

First amendment prevents the federal government from preventing speech or punishing for speech (subject to a few exceptions). This was not that. This was a civil defamation case; the parents bought a case of actual material harm and harrassment of epic proportions before two seperate judges in two seperate states and both courts made the finding that Jones had indeed caused harm and harrassment .. and continued to do so over years.

mech998877 5mo ago
With regards to defamation law, the first amendment does result in the USA having a higher bar for prosecution than most countries- GP still has a valid question.
- lateforwork 5mo ago
  The word "prosecution" implies criminal case brought by the government. This was a civil case brought by the victims. If you mean higher bar for litigation, then maybe this lawsuit and its outcome shows that the bar isn't as high as you think when it comes to defamation?
  - mech998877 5mo ago
    Yes I did mean litigation (didn't know that that term was a distinction learned something today). To my understanding the case outcome is pretty much what I would expect, even considering the first amendment raising the bar. It's also interesting that there's been so many legal shenanigans in the case that it's hard to even keep track of them all.
    - defrost 5mo ago
      The principal legal shenanigan came from Jones and his team - stubbornly refusing to engage with either court via a kind of sovereign citizen "I know my first amendment rights, F- you" vibe. That sealed the case outcome as, IIRC, at least one of the judges just ruled against them for not mounting any defence.

tsimionescu 5mo ago

This is not a case about Sandy Hook the event - it is a defamation case by the victims of that event, that Alex Jones directly attacked. This is the biggest difference - no one is claiming that all of the people who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 attacks were actually actors paid to pretend that they were grieving for their parents and children and friends. No one was encouraged to personally attack said victims and survivors to "expose their lies" because of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Furthermore, defamation law works very differently for claims against public personalities ("Bush did 9/11!") compared to claims against private persons ("this random child shown crying in news reports after her classmates were supposedly killed is actually pretending!"). Also, vague accusations of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy / cover up are far harder to litigate than very clear claims of massive fraud. Finally, the Sandy Hook victims were generally able to show specific damages they suffered, attacks against them by people in their community, because of Jones' actions; Dick Cheney may have been more generally hated because of claims about 9/11 conspiracies, but was not directly harasses in the same way.

someguyiguess 5mo ago
That’s sounds like a first amendment violation with more steps.
- triceratops 5mo ago
  It isn't because there's no government prosecution.
  - jklinger410 5mo ago
    How is a ruling in a civil court not a form of government prosecution? It would be more correct to say that your first amendment rights stop at defaming others.
    - triceratops 5mo ago
      The government didn't bring this civil suit. Ruling on civil disputes is the government's role. That's not what prosecution means.

5129agf 5mo ago

[flagged]

fullshark 5mo ago

This seems like a good faith question to me, Jones clearly operated thinking he was protected under the first amendment, and it was not obvious to me he was going to lose his court case despite morally finding his actions repugnant.

triceratops 5mo ago
What does the first amendment have to do with slander, libel, and defamation?
sjsdaiuasgdia 5mo ago
The first amendment protects you from the government prosecuting you for the content of your speech. The first amendment does not protect you from the results of your speech, like someone deciding they don't like you because of what you said. That person is free to dislike you for what you said and the first amendment has nothing to do with it. Similarly, if you say things that are untrue and cause damage to others, you may be held civilly liable for the damage if they sue you and convince a jury that you lied with knowledge and intent to lie. The first amendment has nothing to do with this.

GuinansEyebrows 5mo ago

if you're truly interested, please check out the podcast 'Knowledge Fight' which covers alex jones and infowars in stunningly minute detail, including the defamation cases in texas and connecticut. the main host was even called as an expert witness in one of the trials to give testimony about alex jones' involvement and denial in harassing and inciting his listeners to harass the parents and survivors of the shooting.

seattle_spring 5mo ago

> can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc Those "other people" were also Alex Jones.