"has given up on trying to reach a settlement that would reduce the $1.5 billion that he owes to the relatives of 20 students and six staff members killed in the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut"
The whole Alex Jones saga, more than anything else, makes it impossible for me to find any common ground with "the other side". For the life of me I can't understand how this became a political issue in the first place. And I'm not even talking about gun control - I'm talking about the horrific demonization (for profit) of a group of people whose only "crime" was that their six and seven year old kids were brutally slaughtered. I just can't fathom how anyone with a ounce of humanity can defend Alex Jones.
Framing it as “the other side” is part of the problem.
There are extremes on both sides, and Alex Jones, and the small faction of his followers who harassed the Sandy Hook parents, are about as extreme as it gets.
There are a few replies which got greyed out for some reason. Antifa is mentioned which is a reasonable candidate, not a person but a group aimed at deconstruction of western society under the cover of 'fighting fascism'. It has the 'market penetration' but where Jones (et al.) keep themselves to spouting rhetoric Antifa and similar organisations - and yes, these are organisations and not 'just ideas' as the current American president insists - use violent actions as their main tactic. Another candidate would be the pro-Hamas factions which call for 'Death to America' and which insist on downplaying and ridiculing the actions of their ideological allies.
There is a heavy tendency to down-play 'left-wing' extremism but that does not make it disappear. You won't find it in the corporate media though, it is not reported by the likes of the SPLC and the ADL and similar organisations but it is there in plain sight. If it happens to hit the news it leads to odd headlines like the 'fiery but mostly peaceful protests' from the 'summer of love' in 2020.
Seriously? Maybe I’m blind (and if so please point out what I’m missing) but I only see one side that:
* seems to be increasing and supporting racism
* has members trying to start a race war (see recent news)
* has many members saying it’s time to arm and have a civil war and kill those that disagree (easy to find on Facebook)
* increasingly encourages armed militias
I see all of that on the extreme right. If it’s happening openly on the extreme left, I’d like to hear about it. For what it’s worth my views slant right, but MAGA and Trump destroyed the right party.
Yes, it is remarkable how much the 'democratic' party seems beholden to its extremist wing, this is likely to cost them dearly in the coming elections. By acting in ways they accuse the other side of doing they are losing their own more moderates as well as independents who either go to 'the other side' or vote for the 'third-party candidate'.
I suspect this is more or less the opposite of what you were trying to say but that does not make it less true. It even fits with the pattern I mentioned before where 'democrats' accuse others of things they are doing themselves. From the 'threat to the democracy' via 'using the courts to attack opponents' this is all a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.
Here's to hoping the upcoming elections end up mostly fair and square - no more shenanigans with mail-in ballots, no night-time counting sessions behind closed doors and for $deity's sake require the voters to identify themselves using some official ID like you need to buy a six-pack of beer and like is done in nearly all civilised countries. Make sure there is a paper trail, do not rely on electronic voting because that is not transparent enough for Joe Sixpack - and right he is. Preliminary results - from actual vote counts, not from exit polls - should be available on the same evening as the vote closes, there is no excuse for 2-3 week waiting periods.
Ludicrous. Remember how T**** told supporters to not use mail-in ballots[0], then tried to stop the counting of mail-in ballots? [1] Or told people to vote twice? [2] Yes, one party is demonstrably more anti-democracy than the other.
I agree with this. I may not 100% agree that the extremists on both sides are as extreme, but for the sake of argument I'll fully grant you this point.
My issue though, is that I don't feel that anyone can say with a straight face that the extremists on the left/liberal/Democratic side have has much influence and power with the party apparatus as on the right/conservative/Republican side. Sure, Alex Jones and his small faction of followers are about as extreme as it gets, but then I'd like to think you'd see Republican leaders up and down denouncing him and distancing themselves from him. Instead I see influential figures on the right like Steve Bannon, former chief strategist in the White House, defend him:
The reason I can't stomach "the other side" is not that they have insane grifter extremists like Jones. It's that so many other more folks on that side with real power somehow and for some reason defend Jones.
He interviewed Trump in 2015 (by which time he’d been spreading Sandy Hook conspiracies for years), and even now post-bankruptcy he still interviews Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and plenty of other fairly mainstream Republican figures.
There’s no one so shameless and harmful on the Left who is anywhere near as close to the mainstream of their political movement as Jones. Whereas the Right is absolutely littered with such figures.
I think that framing it as “two households, both alike in (in)dignity” is a much bigger problem.
I am far from a free-speech absolutist, but yes, free speech means free from consequences. What else could it mean? Even the worst dictatorship can't stop you from speaking... the first time.
If you're "far from a free speech absolutist," then by definition you accept that free speech should have consequences. And even most self-described free speech absolutists agree on some acceptable consequences, like incitement to violence, perjury and slander.
And not all consequences are legal. Human beings are social animals and consequences have always existed for violating common norms and taboos. Go into a synagogue and start handing out copies of Mein Kampf and see what happens.
I'm arguing with the canned sentence because it's stupid and mealy-mouthed. I think some speech should have consequences. I'm not hypocritical enough to think it's still free speech, though.
If I lie about you or your company in my newspaper causing you financial or other harm should I not face consequences such as a lawsuit or should I be allowed to destroy your life consequence free because I feel like it?
What about if I lie about my product and you use it and it fails to deliver, or causes you direct harm? Should I be allowed to do that?
If I lie about you or your company in my newspaper causing you financial or other harm should I not face consequences such as a lawsuit or should I be allowed to destroy your life consequence free because I feel like it?
What about if I lie about my product and you use it and it fails to deliver, or causes you direct harm? Should I be allowed to do that?
Or I start going off about some crazy racist or other bullshit should you be forced to platform/employ/listen to me?
This is all fallout from what was essentially a radical free speech case.
Even so, social media companies kicking you off is way different than the government seizing your social media accounts, the latter which is being asked here.
Causing harm is illegal, "free speech!" is not a magical incantation. Would you say that a mafia boss who only issues orders is protected by free speech?
The word 'harm' has been abused a lot lately so that is probably not the best term to use here.
A mafia boss ordering people around has nothing to do with free speech. When you say 'all $GROUPs should be killed' jokingly in some discussion you're using free speech. If you say the same in front of an armed mob in pursuit of a host of $GROUPs who then proceeds to kill all $GROUPs you gave an order to do so.
Words used to incite imminent lawless action are not free speech, nor are expressions which are in violation of other laws like those regarding defamation, obscenity, prior restraint, incitement and fighting words. It is not the audience in itself on which the consideration depends but the reasonable expectation of reactions by that audience. In the example I gave about 'killing all $GROUPs' it is the presence of an armed audience chasing a group of $GROUPs which turn what was a joke in another context into incitement.
Well, Jones knew the parents were getting death threats and being severely harassed, and yet continued to incite his crowd with lies, so I guess we agree he caused harm and was rightly punished for it.
The speech/action duality, where one is pure and the other earthly, is very American. I'm really curious whether it mirrors or stems from puritan beliefs.
But no, speech isn't entirely free then. That's not a bad thing.
>Sandy hook parents were not watching his hours long ranting to find some small snippet about them. This is government not liking what he said.
Are you joking??
He had people terrorize them for over a decade. In addition to their suffering from losing their children, several of them had to move multiple times because Alex Jones told his lunatic followers that they were crisis actors.
>Its not about alex jones, it's about weaponization of the justice system being used against political opponents.
If the NYTimes slandered and libeled people as Alex Jones has done then yes, the NYTimes should be sued and if found guilty ordered to pay out just as Jones was.
The size of the judgment reflects the magnitude of the harassment.
If the NYTimes ran front page articles every day insinuating you were a liar and trying to use your child’s death for some shadowy agenda, or had even faked that child’s death, and went on doing this to the point that strangers began to threaten you, you had to leave your home, switch states, etc…
All this while you are grieving your murdered child…
If a publication libeled you to that extent, under those circumstances, yes, I think that publication owes you major money. And then I would multiply that sizable judgment by the number of parents defamed, so however big that number is, its’s now 20x larger.
You've neglected to factor in 10 years of continuous knowing harrassment and spawning an army of real life stalkers intent on harrassing the parents for their participation in "the coverup and false acting", etc.
These are not comparable apples and apples events.
> for asserting something people don't agree with seems a bit excessive.
Huh??? “For asserting something people don’t agree with”?? He lied, he literally said none of these people lost their children and are all crisis actors faking the whole thing. This isn’t a matter of opinion, this is a matter of someone literally lying, knowing he’s lying, and continuing to do so despite knowing he’s actively hurting the folks who lost their innocent children.
His idiotic followers have been actively harassing these parents because they believe his bald faced lies and you’re acting as if people are arguing about the color of the “green no it’s some other color” dress.
Right, the slippery slope. Your argument seems to be "what would be the consequences?". But these parents suffered horrible consequences from Alex Jones' actions as it is. Does that matter?
By punishing him, we reduce the risk that more people will do what he has done. That's a good thing.
With Jones on tape admitting he's aware it's a bullshit story that he's cynically spinning to use as a marketing hook for his penis and vitamin supplements?
The accidently had a manic episode and exploited it for millions in grift for a decade argument isn't a good one.
There is no slippery slope here. Harm was actual, demonstrated, and a direct result of the speech. No subjectivity in this case, and in fact a cast-iron proof that absolute free speech would lead to very nasty outcomes.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. It can't be proven either that someone didn't die of a heart attack right before the bullet hit them, but we draw a line at "really, really likely".
Not sure I can follow either. Bullets obviously cause injuries. Words almost never do. And if so, that's mostly up to the recipient and trivial to prevent.
Is a crime boss saying "kill him" to his henchmen not responsible too for the killing? Unless you disagree with that, we're only to argue where the line is, not that there is a line.
True, there are plenty of examples of 'harm' caused by calling people racists/nazis/granny-killers (during the SARS2-unpleasantness)/*-phobes/etcetera which have caused people their jobs and their social circles.
Is it illegal to label people with such epithets in the knowledge that it often leads to such outcomes? If not, why not?
Under current law, before public figures can recover on a defamation claim, they must prove that a defamatory comment was made with knowledge that it was false, or with a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity (the malice standard)
So, because another party is disproportionately punished for their crimes, we must punish others disproportionately as well? We should be raising the bar, not giving it a funeral.
Sounds fair to me. Let the families broadcast to his audience daily the harms of criminal speech, until they all unsubscribe. Or better yet, to promote their own products, so that they can recoup some of the $1.5B damage Alex Jones has done to them. Better that then giving this grifter another tweet to cause damage to the collective psyche of the world.
> Jones' X account, which has 2.3 million followers, is "no different than a customer list of any other liquidating business," the Sandy Hook families argued.
It's very different because it's a public outlet of free speech, and its only value to someone is to suppress his speech since any other use is basically libel.
And he's being held responsible for that, but he still has an ongoing right to free speech. If he lies again (he will, especially now that he has nothing to lose), he'll be back in court.
Is anybody making Alex Jones not to say whatever he wants to say anymore? I mean like forcing him for drugs, surgery on tongue or hands to remove his ability to speak or write down his ideas?
He had freespeech and will have it (even people from jail can speak their mind), he is being held accountable of the content of his speech because lying for profit is not a tolerable practice in society. Same as scammers have freespeech to shell rattlesnake venom, but once they run with the money and rattlesnake is just colored water, the scammers had to answer for their actions.
> It's very different because it's a public outlet of free speech, and its only value to someone is to suppress his speech since any other use is basically libel.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that "any other use is basically libel".
Posting something as @realalexjones, especially when it was his account in the past, is akin to saying "Alex Jones said X," which is fine if he actually said it. If he didn't, it's libel.
Twitter handles, as well as display names, can be changed. (Not that posting from the account is the only use of the information it contains in the first place.)
Twitter is not a public outlet of free speech and you'd have to be an absolutely batshit lunatic to claim it is after everything that's happened with Musk's acquisition.
1.5 billion dollars.
So fucking good.