What should happen to Alex Jones?

[public hermit]

Alex Jones used his platform to deny the horrendous truth about the Sandy Hook shooting. His influence ensured that others would deny that horrendous truth, which compounded the sorrow and suffering of Sandy Hook families. What should be the consequence of his actions?

Answers are not limited to what the law will allow in terms of the current case and payment. If you think the appropriate consequence for his actions is cleaning all the men's restrooms along Interstate 10 for a lifetime, then fine. But please explain why that is a fitting consequence for what he did. If you think he did nothing wrong, then please state your case and good luck.

I'm particularly interested in seeing differences between punitive consequences and reforming consequences, but any suggestions that are interesting or simply funny are more than welcomed.

 

[Saucy]

I don't like what he did. I do not agree with him. But I do not think he should be punished. His statements fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment, so I hope he appeals and wins.

 

[DaisyDay]

He did worse than merely deny that the Sandy Hook shooting took place - he subjected the parents to harassment and death threats from his followers and accused them of being actors, liars and grifters for profit. And he did this for entertainment.

 

[public hermit]

He did worse than merely deny that the Sandy Hook shooting took place - he subjected the parents to harassment and death threats from his followers and accused them of being actors, liars and grifters for profit. And he did this for entertainment.

What consequence seems fitting to you given what he did?

 

[DaisyDay]

What consequence seems fitting to you given what he did?

Shunning.

 

[Yttrium]

I don't like what he did. I do not agree with him. But I do not think he should be punished. His statements fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment, so I hope he appeals and wins.

That's not how the 1st Amendment works. It protects you from speaking out against the government. It does not protect you from slander or libel lawsuits from other citizens.

Unfettered conspiracy theories have their consequences when you bear false witness against others. I don't think Alex Jones should be hit with any criminal penalties. I think he should be hit by more big lawsuits. Keep 'em coming.

 

[public hermit]

I don't like what he did. I do not agree with him. But I do not think he should be punished. His statements fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment, so I hope he appeals and wins.

The 1st Amendment is there to protect speech needed for the people to engage in self-rule through free debate and the free exchange of ideas. Jones is just an immoral liar. What is it, again, about his immorality that you want to protect?

 

[Hank77]

I don't like what he did. I do not agree with him. But I do not think he should be punished. His statements fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment, so I hope he appeals and wins.

If you know what you are saying is a lie and that lie hurts other people they have the legal right to sue you in civil court.
That's why Fox News, Lin Wood, the Kraken woman, and maybe Rudi are all being sued by Dominion Voting Systems and the other voting system company, I can't remember their name.

 

[johnjanuary1984]

He should be allowed to have a fair trial. The Judge is not allowing the defense to call their own witnesses. The Judge is not being impartial.

 

[public hermit]

He should be allowed to have a fair trial. The Judge is not allowing the defense to call their own witnesses. The Judge is not being impartial.

Do you think he told the truth about Sandy Hook? If not, what would be a fitting consequence?

 

[Occams Barber]

Alex Jones used his platform to deny the horrendous truth about the Sandy Hook shooting. His influence ensured that others would deny that horrendous truth, which compounded the sorrow and suffering of Sandy Hook families. What should be the consequence of his actions?

Answers are not limited to what the law will allow in terms of the current case and payment. If you think the appropriate consequence for his actions is cleaning all the men's restrooms along Interstate 10 for a lifetime, then fine. But please explain why that is a fitting consequence for what he did. If you think he did nothing wrong, then please state your case and good luck.

I'm particularly interested in seeing differences between punitive consequences and reforming consequences, but any suggestions that are interesting or simply funny are more than welcomed.

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

 

[johnjanuary1984]

Do you think he told the truth about Sandy Hook? If not, what would be a fitting consequence?

I thought all Alex Jones and Infowars was a bunch of obvious lies, just like a tabloid magazine.

So why sue him for this and not all thee other thousands of lies he has spewed over the years???

 

[public hermit]

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 to 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

That seems a fair consequence: take away his voice, and he has to pay compensation. For someone like Jones, not having a voice in the public forum will be punishment and, hopefully, provide the solitude for reflection. But I agree; if you misuse the space of the public forum, you lose the right to use it. Let's face it, having a voice is a privilege and only a right when used properly. It's a privilege because it depends on a working democracy for its proper use.

 

[public hermit]

I thought all Alex Jones and Infowars was a bunch of obvious lies, just like a tabloid magazine.

So why sue him for this and not all thee other thousands of lies he has spewed over the years???

I would agree if no one had paid him any mind for his lies, but the consequences of his lies caused irreparable harm. Do some research if you haven’t; it's at your fingertips. He had a loud voice in the public forum, which brings responsibility (not unlike crying fire in a theater: you had better be right). As for all the other liars, this thread is for this specific liar.

 

[Saucy]

The 1st Amendment is there to protect speech needed for the people to engage in self-rule through free debate and the free exchange of ideas. Jones is just an immoral liar. What is it, again, about his immorality that you want to protect?

If you know what you are saying is a lie and that lie hurts other people they have the legal right to sue you in civil court.
That's why Fox News, Lin Wood, the Kraken woman, and maybe Rudi are all being sued by Dominion Voting Systems and the other voting system company, I can't remember their name.

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.

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

(I'm not going after anyone here. Just trying to make a point).

People often say free speech has consequences, but if that's the case, then there's no such thing as free speech. Should people be punished for their opinions or beliefs? You'd have to prove with evidence that Alex Jones caused harm by intentionally lying.

 

[ozso]

He should be fined.

 

[public hermit]

What if he isn't lying?

He already admitted he was. Try again.

 

[johnjanuary1984]

Hmm

 

[Occams Barber]

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

That's exactly what I'm advocating. Deliberate and harmful misinformation should be a criminal offence - just like robbery or assault. If it can't be established that the misinformation is deliberate then the person shouldn't be charged. This is no different to any other criminal offence where intentionality must be established.

It may well be difficult to frame a law covering the offence of misinforming but, in principle, it isn't an unreasonable idea.

OB

 

[public hermit]

Joe Biden lies .

upload images

Wonderful. Create a thread or move on.