What should happen to Alex Jones?

[Sparagmos]

People often say free speech has consequences, but if that's the case, then there's no such thing as free speech.

You are free to tell your wife she is ugly, but there will likely be consequences. All speech has consequences.

 

[com7fy8]

Money, mostly. Outrage sells; he sells outrage and fear.

Yeah, people can do stuff to make money, and not care about whoever they use.

I don't know. Maybe if they believed the lies, they wanted to punish people who, they thought, were telling lies in order to take away their guns?

I thought of that. But I have been discovering that people can have different reasons for what they do, and not what I would think. So, thank you for telling me what you think. Big kids hating others for wanting to take away their toys . . . that is a more predictable motive.

But if ones did that for the sake of guns, it might not make a good impression of how much we should trust ones who want guns . . . except people can see through that and not let evil people decide how we see things.

 

[IceJad]

That might be the legal stopping point, as things stand. If it is, it's not sufficient. I think we are learning, in the information age, that just saying things has consequences even if no direct imperative is given. I don't know. We're in new territory.

In that case how many inciteful things that hollywood celebrities and self righteous activists had said publicly? Are they all now liable? There must be a threshold for absurdity in speech before crossing the line to harassment and criminal intent. That line is the call to action. Else every criticism, rants and general disagreement will be construed as criminal. Are we now going back to the time where les majesty or heresy rule supreme?

 

[IceJad]

Why not? It's not as though it were a one time thing. He kept telling vicious lies about real people who suffered a real tragedy, his followers harassed the victims, his victims complained to him - and he kept on doing it.

Which American president did you vote into office? Cause whoever you name I have at least one case of criminal act he has committed in the leadership capacity for America. Since you voted him in you're liable as an American and a supporter by association to his crimes.

I don't like him because of what he did and keeps doing.

It is your prerogative, no one can deny you that. But you're just applying every crime by others to him solely by association. It is a slippery slope. I don't like him too. But I'll only fault him for things he himself had done. No more no less. Fair is fair even if I don't like it personally.

There is such a crime as incitement. Look it up.

Anything can be deemed incitement if you play enough mental gymnastics. Even benign things like talking loudly. All you need to do if give context. Like he is talking so loudly because he wanted to drown out my voice as a minority (race, religion or whatever identifier). He is trying to erase my presence in the larger social structure by normalizing talking loudly over my soft voice. Absurdity but repeated enough times people will think it is real.

He didn't just say stupid things, he repeatedly told lies about real people on his public platform. A person is not free to harass and libel.

And he committed perjury, repeatedly. On camera and under oath.

What he said to his own detriment is his problem. What others did based on what he said are not his problem so long there is no direct call to action. It is that simple. Crime by association is not a crime.

Let me repeat I don't like him as much as the next guy. However I'll not attribute to him what is not his. If he has done 10 crimes let him be judge for 10 not 11 because someone he knows has done that additional 1.

 

[Aldebaran]

The jury has set Jones' punitive damages at $45 million on top of the $4+ million already granted in compensatory damages.

Jury awards $45.2 million in punitive damages in Alex Jones Sandy Hook trial | Reuters

OB

Those getting all that money will claim, "It's not about the money".

 

[Halbhh]

I would be interested in hearing a clip where Jones told anybody to commit a violent attack on anybody.

The way incitement works, it's not necessary to always say do X (a given action), but it's already going to incite some listeners to violence and/or making threats if a group is falsely painted as extremely bad.

Some of the listeners will take that as enough to justify harassing or threatening or attacking that accused group.


One of the few conspiracy theories that has led to real consequences for Jones is his claim that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 26 dead, including 20 children between six and seven years old, was a hoax that employed so-called “crisis actors.”

Jones claimed that the shooting was “completely fake” and staged in order to promote more restrictive gun control policies. Earlier this year, families of children who were killed in the shooting sued Jones for defamation, specifically citing comments he made in an April 2017 broadcast titled “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed.”

Eight families have sued Jones, claiming that his reports on the Sandy Hook massacre have caused them immense personal pain and led his followers to harass them.

After originally calling the shooting a “hoax,” Jones later said that he believed it “really happened” but insisted that the families suing him were agents of the Democratic Party.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing-ridiculous-conspiracy-theories.html

 

[DaisyDay]

Which American president did you vote into office? Cause whoever you name I have at least one case of criminal act he has committed in the leadership capacity for America. Since you voted him in you're liable as an American and a supporter by association to his crimes.

I realize that I as an American bear responsibility for actions committed by my government whether I knew or approved of them.

It is your prerogative, no one can deny you that. But you're just applying every crime by others to him solely by association. It is a slippery slope. I don't like him too. But I'll only fault him for things he himself had done. No more no less. Fair is fair even if I don't like it personally.

No, you are mistaken. I am not applying every crime by others to him. He harassed and lied and incited his followers to do the same. Not every crime or every action.

Anything can be deemed incitement if you play enough mental gymnastics. Even benign things like talking loudly. All you need to do if give context. Like he is talking so loudly because he wanted to drown out my voice as a minority (race, religion or whatever identifier). He is trying to erase my presence in the larger social structure by normalizing talking loudly over my soft voice. Absurdity but repeated enough times people will think it is real.

It doesn't take much agility to see the incitement here. He told egregious lies about private people who never did him any harm. He purposefully agitated his followers. He knew what they were doing and continued to stoke their anger and fear with lies.

What he said to his own detriment is his problem. What others did based on what he said are not his problem so long there is no direct call to action. It is that simple. Crime by association is not a crime.

What he said was not to his detriment - he made enormous profits. The "by association" is a straw man that you keep repeating.

Let me repeat I don't like him as much as the next guy. However I'll not attribute to him what is not his. If he has done 10 crimes let him be judge for 10 not 11 because someone he knows has done that additional 1.

His incitement is his.

 

[Aldebaran]

The way incitement works, it's not necessary to always say do X (a given action), but it's already going to incite some listeners to violence and/or making threats if a group is falsely painted as extremely bad.

Some of the listeners will take that as enough to justify harassing or threatening or attacking that accused group.


One of the few conspiracy theories that has led to real consequences for Jones is his claim that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 26 dead, including 20 children between six and seven years old, was a hoax that employed so-called “crisis actors.”

Jones claimed that the shooting was “completely fake” and staged in order to promote more restrictive gun control policies. Earlier this year, families of children who were killed in the shooting sued Jones for defamation, specifically citing comments he made in an April 2017 broadcast titled “Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed.”

Eight families have sued Jones, claiming that his reports on the Sandy Hook massacre have caused them immense personal pain and led his followers to harass them.

After originally calling the shooting a “hoax,” Jones later said that he believed it “really happened” but insisted that the families suing him were agents of the Democratic Party.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing-ridiculous-conspiracy-theories.html

IOW, the definition is quite subjective.
It's the same type of reasoning that would claim that the manufacturer of a car that can go 180 mph was inciting the owner to try to outrun the police, and should be held liable for the damages resulting from a high speed chase.

 

[zippy2006]

You were the one who said that the repercussions of someone's "lies" were horrendous, so what I pointed out in regards to that was very relevant to this discussion. Do you really believe that the lies being told by others is really "wonderful"?

Obviously those who threaten the lives of supreme court judges should also be prosecuted, but the partisans in this thread are certainly not interested in moral consistency, and it is doubtful that they will engage you on such points.

The only real difference between the case you raise and Jones' case is the mob's mentality with respect to the act (as well as the media coverage it produces, which is a related phenomenon). Our democracy is fracturing and shifting towards mob rule. The law is no longer of any concern.

 

[zippy2006]

But we have to ask ourselves, if we know eternal love, how is it we support that which is not love?

It's not hard to understand. It's just not what we want, apparently. Which begs the question, what do we really know if what we support is hate?

But by your own definitions, you are the one supporting hate. In the past you have argued that to put a criminal to death is hateful and hypocritical, and that for God to condemn to Hell is similarly hateful. But you wish great evil to befall Alex Jones, and you made a thread to stir up hatred against him. Are you not, then, the one supporting hate?

 

[Campos]

The decision is up to God!

 

[johnjanuary1984]

Alex Jones makes logical defense

EXCLUSIVE! Alex Jones Responds To $45M Sandy Hook Verdict And The Future Of Infowars

 

[Yttrium]

Alex Jones makes logical defense

EXCLUSIVE! Alex Jones Responds To $45M Sandy Hook Verdict And The Future Of Infowars

I have to admit, it's a popular style of logic these days.

Insane Troll Logic - TV Tropes

 

[Tom 1]

I have to admit, it's a popular style of logic these days.

Insane Troll Logic - TV Tropes

It’s oddly reassuring that when you think you’ve seen the dumbest thing ever, there’s always a deeper layer of idiocy out there.

 

[Landon Caeli]

If someone buys a gun and then goes out and uses it for an unjustified killing we would (presumably) accept that the killer should be deprived of the right to own a gun either permanently or, at least, for a period of time.

If someone commits a crime we have no problem putting them in prison and depriving them of their right to liberty for a period of time.

In the same way, if someone causes serious harm through the deliberate promulgation of misinformation their right to a public voice should also be removed - at least for a period of time. In the case of a robbery it is reasonable to recover the proceeds of the robbery from the thief. In the same way it seems reasonable that we recover any profit accruing from the misinformation. This includes payments made to the misinformer based on his/her role in publicly broadcasting the misinformation.

The right to free speech is no more sacrosanct than the right to bear arms or the right to liberty.

OB

In this same way, people should not think bad things, since it leads to bad behaviors -- people need to be re-educated when they show signs of bad thinking.

...Bad thinking effects everyone. The right to freedom of thought is no more sacrosanct than the right to freedom of speech.

 

[Landon Caeli]

You are free to tell your wife she is ugly, but there will likely be consequences. All speech has consequences.

Likewise, if you keep thinking to yourself that your wife is ugly, you will most likely 'spill the beans' at some point, causing consequences... So that type of thinking is bad.

People should be tested on their personalities, to make sure their thinking falls within the accepted parameters.

 

[DaisyDay]

But by your own definitions, you are the one supporting hate. In the past you have argued that to put a criminal to death is hateful and hypocritical, and that for God to condemn to Hell is similarly hateful. But you wish great evil to befall Alex Jones, and you made a thread to stir up hatred against him. Are you not, then, the one supporting hate?

Is that the Tolerance Paradox thing?

 

[DaisyDay]

What if he isn't lying? Lying, to me, implies he is doing it intentionally knowing it's wrong. I believe he believes it. That's the thing about conspiracy theories. You're allowed to have a different opinion. You're allowed to disagree with the main view.

He has admitted to believing that the shooting happened and that children did die at Sandy Hook.

It's no different than if Trump saw posts here from liberals and then sued them all for slander.

It is different because Trump is a public figure, he put himself in the spotlight, so the bar is higher than for a private person who is highlighted by a tragedy not of their own making. Trump would have to prove that it was slander, untrue and known to be untrue, and that he was harmed by it. These parents who sued were defamed, exposed to public ridicule, accused of being "crisis actors" on a popular platform after their child was murdered. Jones played video clips edited to deceive over and over.

I mean, where do we cross the line on what is free speech? Are you the moral authority who gets to tell people what they can or can't believe?

When speech is untrue, known to be untrue, harmful and defamatory the line is crossed. The reason the Jan 6 hearings are revelatory is that so many people have testified that Trump was told by trusted people, in the position to know, that he lost the election fairly, but he continued to claim otherwise. If, despite all the evidence, Trump really and truly believed he won then he was and is delusional which calls for the 25 Amendment.

People often say free speech has consequences, but if that's the case, then there's no such thing as free speech.

You are right that free speech is not absolute (few things are). You are not allowed to wantonly harass and defame people, especially non-public people.

Should people be punished for their opinions or beliefs?

That's a different question. Short answer: no. However, you can be punished for actions based on beliefs. See Sovereign Citizens (pdf) for example.

You'd have to prove with evidence that Alex Jones caused harm by intentionally lying.

He didn't show up in court to defend himself, so he lost that case by default. However, during the trial to determine damages, he was caught and called out for lying under oath more than once by the judge (not in hearing of the jury, but on camera).

 

[Sparagmos]

Likewise, if you keep thinking to yourself that your wife is ugly, you will most likely 'spill the beans' at some point, causing consequences... So that type of thinking is bad.

People should be tested on their personalities, to make sure their thinking falls within the accepted parameters.

Are you trying to make a point? If so what is it?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Are you trying to make a point? If so what is it?

Thoughts have consequences just as much as speech does... There's no denying it.