The Legal Travesty of the Alex Jones Trial

[DGS49]

Alex Jones ordered to pay nearly half a billion dollars to ... - CNNhttps://www.cnn.com › alex-jones-sandy-hook-damages

This has been discussed previously in various forums, but the preposterous damages being assessed against Alex Jones and his posse are a great illustration of how absurd American tort law has become. Here we have a group of people/families who were made to have their feelings hurt by a crackpot Internet personality. None of them suffered any physical injury, and if any of them even had to start taking anti-depression pills over the head of it, that person would have had to be a neurotic to start with.

There is no doubt he is a crackpot, and there is no doubt he was peddling a ridiculous conspiracy theory. There is no doubt that some people were made to feel badly by his rantings. He should be punished.

But a TEN DIGIT award of "damages"? With more to come?

Would this legal shitstorm have been carried to this extent if the trial judge had been a man? I don't think so.

We really need a forum here to discuss gender issues.

 

[Donald H]

Alex Jones ordered to pay nearly half a billion dollars to ... - CNNhttps://www.cnn.com › alex-jones-sandy-hook-damages

This has been discussed previously in various forums, but the preposterous damages being assessed against Alex Jones and his posse are a great illustration of how absurd American tort law has become. Here we have a group of people/families who were made to have their feelings hurt by a crackpot Internet personality. None of them suffered any physical injury, and if any of them even had to start taking anti-depression pills over the head of it, that person would have had to be a neurotic to start with.

There is no doubt he is a crackpot, and there is no doubt he was peddling a ridiculous conspiracy theory. There is no doubt that some people were made to feel badly by his rantings. He should be punished.

But a TEN DIGIT award of "damages"? With more to come?

Would this legal shitstorm have been carried to this extent if the trial judge had been a man? I don't think so.

We really need a forum here to discuss gender issues.

Awards granted in a law suit have to reflect the accused's ability to pay.

This forum isn't capable of a normal discussion on gender issues and has no interest in anything other than extremist hate for anyone they can label as deviant from the Christian dictated norm.

 

[DGS49]

"Awards granted in a law suit have to reflect the accused's ability to pay."

Would that it were so. But it's not.

That's why the Tort Bar invented "vicarious liability." So that judgments against Catholic priests and bishops would be paid by the congregations who contribute their alms to the Church. Because priests and bishops don't have any money.

 

[emilynghiem]

Alex Jones ordered to pay nearly half a billion dollars to ... - CNNhttps://www.cnn.com › alex-jones-sandy-hook-damages

This has been discussed previously in various forums, but the preposterous damages being assessed against Alex Jones and his posse are a great illustration of how absurd American tort law has become. Here we have a group of people/families who were made to have their feelings hurt by a crackpot Internet personality. None of them suffered any physical injury, and if any of them even had to start taking anti-depression pills over the head of it, that person would have had to be a neurotic to start with.

There is no doubt he is a crackpot, and there is no doubt he was peddling a ridiculous conspiracy theory. There is no doubt that some people were made to feel badly by his rantings. He should be punished.

But a TEN DIGIT award of "damages"? With more to come?

Would this legal shitstorm have been carried to this extent if the trial judge had been a man? I don't think so.

We really need a forum here to discuss gender issues.

The damages caused appear to be some form of negligence. Indirectly Jones was doing the equivalent of "inciting a riot" by inciting his followers to hate and harass those particular families, based on his misrepresentation and "defaming" those parents as "frauds" and "criminal conspirators". One man got assaulted. Others were stalked and received death threats which is a felony to make. The problem was 1. He didn't cause that damage directly 2. Suing for defamation and slander is a separate issue, and he defamed the parents indirectly. His intent was to complain about govt, and had he only accused public figures or govt employees and institutions of fraud, that would be one thing. He crossed the line by referring to the PARENTS who because of the exposure in the media were identifiable by name. 3. This is like Trump defending himself against rape charges as false. But he goes too far if he starts accusing a private person of being a liar, fraud or paid operative for a political campaign. Accusing the person in public by stating something as a fact puts the burden of proof on the accuser to prove what they claimed is true and not defamation. Private citizens are different. Both Trump crossed the line when he called out an individual person who is not a govt / public figure, and Jones did by naming and accusing people as "all the parents of Sandy Hook"

I guess if he said SOME of the parents "could be liars frauds or conspirators" then he might have gotten away with it because he isn't naming which ones and isn't saying ALL of them are lying frauds which got them ALL targeted for harassment and death threats.

Another similar precedent in court cases was a reference to damages due to false accusations in the Vietnamese community and media "calling people colluders with Communist govt" which has also incited hatred, vandalism and death threats, violating the security of the accused person and family. Again instead of pursuing it as "inciting riots" the civil lawsuits are charged as defamation and slander or libel. The urgency and seriousness of the matter is pushed by adding the damages to public reputation by spelling out the reactions that started threatening the person and their family.

I guess if someone is swimming in the ocean, and you pour blood or bloody animal flesh in the water around them, where this attracts sharks that threaten the safety of the people in the water, you aren't directly making death threats but inciting the risk and terror for their safety.

The proper action would be to urge them to stop the endangering bait throwing because of the sharks. It would not be fair to punish them for death threats that didn't happen. But if sharks do show up, that threatens all the people in the vicinity in the water, even if only one actually got hit or bit by one of the sharks attracted by the bait you poured near them.