@philokalia saidThe evidence clearly showed Jones didn't "believe in absurd things" (well at least the absurd thing at issue in the trial) but maliciously repeated them anyway.
This doesn't make any sense to me. I understand that sometimes there is a distinction between criminal law and .I guess you would call it 'civil law'... But how is there wrongdoing via saying moronic things that are not illegal?
How can someone be held criminally responsible for the sole crime of being a moron?
Illegal to harass people's families, of course - nobod ...[text shortened]... ehind bars. So, they go after a guy who has money that they can connect to it.
Strange scenario.
Saying you were a party to the false claim that your children were murdered when they actually were certainly seems to fit rather easily into the definition of defamation where the speaker knows it is untrue.
08 Aug 22
@suzianne saidI don't believe in incitement.
When "entertainment" incites people to riot (Jan.6), or attack those who are lied about (Jones), there has to be a limit on lies.
Maybe new laws on "incitement driven by lies", you know, because people are too stupid and believe too many con men. Americans, especially, can't tell lies from fact any more.
I am not familiar with Constitutional law, but I would say that American jurists generally agree with me based off of the 'Clear & present danger' concept, by which yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is not constitutionally protected speech, yet even talking about violent actions in the indefinite future is OK and not seditious.
I guess some reading for this is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Trump said "peacefully & patriotically be heard." It also seems unlikely he could have predited that level of violence... But that level of violence was also unremarkable when put into the proper context: people fought cops on the police line.
They then broke into the Capitol... Kind of? At some point they were being let in, and there is audio of the MAGA Shaman guy entering the House of Representatives and interacting with the Security there where... the whole thing just felt like an impromptu photoshoot. Not unlike podium guy posing to give a thumbs up as he ran off with Pelosi's possession.
If somebody is organizing crime, that is illegal and not free speech. So, if somebody says We are meeting to form an armed lynch mob to go kill so & so at 8 PM, it's of course illegal. 'Clear & present danger' also exists if someone yells fire in a crowded theater. I suppose it is also the case that somebody during a tense moment where armed people are pointing guns at each other begins to y ell "Shoot them now!" or some such, has also broken the law, as it is a clear and present danger...
But what is this 'incitement' stuff?
A slippery language & slippery concept that would be used to lock up opponents of the government.
40-50 years ago, conservatives would be OK locking up leftsts as "commies" and agitators en masse... Now, the shoe is on the other foot, so we have the mind-blowing experience of watching ostensibly progressive people now try to whittle down the free speech protections in order to throw around the weight of their power.
It's pretty disgusting and it should convince us of one thing: the necessity to absolutely protect our rights to do things.
08 Aug 22
I actually tongue-in-cheek posted about how human rights are a made up concept....It was a fun post, and to some degree it helps illustrate the difficulty of rights in a godless universe... It also gave a round critique of democratic impotency, if I remember right...
But as time passes, I look back on that as a mistake. It was sophistry, really. Fun sophistry.
We need our rights... And I am sure many would agree that, even if God did not exist, the limitation of government in order to prevent tyranny, and the right of the individual to be free in his persons are just necessary for us to have a good community.
It has also been my experience that the stupidity of others does not diminish me... The anger, malice, and hatred of others is also something that does not hurt me until it is weaponized, and so the free expression of it is not so wrong. I think that its expression can also be part of the healing process: many angry young men become cool-headed old grandfathers who look back with a combination of embarrassment, amusement, and laughter at their old selves, and are better at guiding youths because they were once those angry people.
So... Long live our rights, and the may the spirit be to not impose much on others. Of course, by all means, use the public airwaves to convey accurate information on the Coronavirus and the Sandy Hook massacre, and I also agree to use the airwaves to promote virtuous behavior by and large, discouraging people from negative actions...
The government should take action to encourage the right.
But please, don't step on people. Let people be stupid & angry if that is how they want to be - criminalizing it will not make it better.
@philokalia saidJust because something is legal that doesn't mean it's not wrong. Some states allow harmful or toxic waste to be dumped in rivers and streams which may harm wildlife or even local citizens. Despite being "legal" such companies that dumb harmful substances into waters can still be found legally liable for harming those who live there.
This doesn't make any sense to me. I understand that sometimes there is a distinction between criminal law and .I guess you would call it 'civil law'... But how is there wrongdoing via saying moronic things that are not illegal?
Same with Jones; his comments and actions may have been legal but they were still harmful enough for a court to award damages.
08 Aug 22
@vivify saidNearly 50 million is excessive. I know AJ is an idiot, but people lie about crap all of the time and are never held liable for the damage they do. It sets a bad precedent.
Just because something is legal that doesn't mean it's not wrong. Some states allow harmful or toxic waste to be dumped in rivers and streams which may harm wildlife or even local citizens. Despite being "legal" such companies that dumb harmful substances into waters can still be found legally liable for harming those who live there.
Same with Jones; his comments and actions may have been legal but they were still harmful enough for a court to award damages.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-speaks-out-against-political-persecution-of-alex-jones/
08 Aug 22
@philokalia said"They then broke into the Capitol... Kind of? At some point they were being let in"
I actually tongue-in-cheek posted about how human rights are a made up concept....It was a fun post, and to some degree it helps illustrate the difficulty of rights in a godless universe... It also gave a round critique of democratic impotency, if I remember right...
But as time passes, I look back on that as a mistake. It was sophistry, really. Fun sophistry.
We n ...[text shortened]... people be stupid & angry if that is how they want to be - criminalizing it will not make it better.
They were being let in at the same time Ashli Babbit entered a broken window and was shot to death. That is what was so outrageous about it. The CP that were letting protesters in were not doing their jobs and should have been fired. If they were ordered to let protesters in that should be revealed so we know who gave them that order.
Liz Cheney is not investigating that. She is only interested in carrying on a show trial that ignores the Capitol Police's role in the fiasco. She is running a distraction campaign.
08 Aug 22
@vivify saidIs it really legal to pollute in some parts of the US like that?
Just because something is legal that doesn't mean it's not wrong. Some states allow harmful or toxic waste to be dumped in rivers and streams which may harm wildlife or even local citizens. Despite being "legal" such companies that dumb harmful substances into waters can still be found legally liable for harming those who live there.
Same with Jones; his comments and actions may have been legal but they were still harmful enough for a court to award damages.
I also do not understand how someone could contest that Alex Jones has damaged their reputation. In order to damage someone's reputation and really commit liable, you would think you would need a respectable platform and reputation yourself.
I think the State agrees that this kind of coercion and extortion from people is acceptable via civil law because they do not want to be responsible for rigorously investigating actual cases of harassment and stalking, and instead just want to scare people into silence, thinking they will get permanently destroyed for floating conspiracies that might bring kooks out of the woodwork.
It's kind of like a Heckler's veto in a weird way.
@philokalia saidReally? You don't see how someone who has millions of listeners falsely claiming you engaged in a conspiracy to pretend your children were murdered when they really weren't isn't damaging to your reputation?
Is it really legal to pollute in some parts of the US like that?
I also do not understand how someone could contest that Alex Jones has damaged their reputation. In order to damage someone's reputation and really commit liable, you would think you would need a respectable platform and reputation yourself.
I think the State agrees that this kind of coercion and exto ...[text shortened]... s that might bring kooks out of the woodwork.
It's kind of like a Heckler's veto in a weird way.
The Texas definition is:
"Sec. 73.001. ELEMENTS OF LIBEL. A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury."
@philokalia saidI think Trump wanted the crowd to break into the Capitol and disrupt the process and was pleased that they did, but the element of pre-planning is missing is far as he is concerned at least as to what evidence has been publicly disclosed so far.
I don't believe in incitement.
I am not familiar with Constitutional law, but I would say that American jurists generally agree with me based off of the 'Clear & present danger' concept, by which yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is not constitutionally protected speech, yet even talking about violent actions in the indefinite future is OK and not seditious. ...[text shortened]... should convince us of one thing: the necessity to absolutely protect our rights to do things.
08 Aug 22
@no1marauder saidOK, this is interesting: Jones is perhaps guilty of repeating asinine things to cater to his crazy viewership.
The evidence clearly showed Jones didn't "believe in absurd things" (well at least the absurd thing at issue in the trial) but maliciously repeated them anyway.
Saying you were a party to the false claim that your children were murdered when they actually were certainly seems to fit rather easily into the definition of defamation where the speaker knows it is untrue.
I believe that many different groups of people do this... during the Hillary Clinton email leak, there was this memorable part where she talked about how she did not actually agree with some of the LGBTQ talking points they were putting out to her, but she goes on to say them, anyways, because that is what is good for the PR.
Politicians and other talking heads regularly pander to their audience... So, Alex Jones is guilty of pandering to his.
You could be a complete & total skeptic of Jones and believe that he is a completely normal, well-adjusted person that is just cashing in on saying these conspiracies to his audience... But I think he probably at least believes some of what he says.
Regardless, I stick to my original position, even if AJ is unscrupulous. No crime has been committed.
08 Aug 22
@philokalia saidNo one is claiming a "crime" was committed, so that statement is besides the point.
OK, this is interesting: Jones is perhaps guilty of repeating asinine things to cater to his crazy viewership.
I believe that many different groups of people do this... during the Hillary Clinton email leak, there was this memorable part where she talked about how she did not actually agree with some of the LGBTQ talking points they were putting out to her, but she goe ...[text shortened]... egardless, I stick to my original position, even if AJ is unscrupulous. No crime has been committed.
Jones was and is perfectly free to repeat asinine things so long as they aren't libelous.
08 Aug 22
@no1marauder saidI can see how people more skeptical of Trump than I would believe this. It isn't unreasonable, especially if you believe that Trump uses populism to get what he wants and is not an authentic populist...
I think Trump wanted the crowd to break into the Capitol and disrupt the process and was pleased that they did, but the element of pre-planning is missing is far as he is concerned at least as to what evidence has been publicly disclosed so far.
But he did not commit a crime because incitement should never be a crime.
... I also do not think this is true because what would have disrupting the counting process even have meant..?
"Guys, democracy is over; we couldn't hold the formal procedure on this day at this hour, so that means the whole thing is kaput."
And no, there's also no scenario where unarmed middle aged Trump enthusiasts are going to hold the capitol indefinitely, throwing an effective coup...
Trump wanted a loud protest. He got it. Maybe that is fair.
08 Aug 22
@no1marauder saidOK, I see, but I think that it's odd for a court to be able to give Jones' money to someone else over this.
No one is claiming a "crime" was committed, so that statement is besides the point.
Jones was and is perfectly free to repeat asinine things so long as they aren't libelous.
It's not as if Jones has just failed in his contractual obligations as a business to these people.
He advanced a crazy line about Sandy Hook all being fake.
08 Aug 22
@metal-brain saidIt's not just lying, it's the harassment and death threats that resulted from those lies.
Nearly 50 million is excessive. I know AJ is an idiot, but people lie about crap all of the time and are never held liable for the damage they do. It sets a bad precedent.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-speaks-out-against-political-persecution-of-alex-jones/
@philokalia saidhttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
Is it really legal to pollute in some parts of the US like that?
Trump significantly reduced restrictions on pollution, including:
Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams.
Weakened a rule that aimed to limit toxic discharge from power plants into public waterways.
I don't know if this is still the case under Biden but during Trump's term it was legal.