What should happen to Alex Jones?

[Aldebaran]

Yeah, the repercussions of his lies are horrendous. People searched out Sandy Hook families to call them liars and threatened their lives.

People have been searching out conservative Supreme Court justices and threatening their lives as well but that's been labeled as free speech, or the freedom to protest. People also have been calling Trump supporters liars for pointing out election irregularities. But that has been considered to be acceptable to do because certain people agree with that opinion. People are called liars and deniers for not agreeing with the climate change conspiracy, but that type of slander seems to be OK as well. So why should anyone care if a radio talk show host states his own opinions?

 

[public hermit]

I've been very moved by watching the parents of Parkland students testify in the sentencing hearing. I just could not imagine their pain...yet to have a raving madman say it was all fake, my pain was fake, that it was all staged. Then having followers harass me. This level of evil is inhumane. If he legitimately believed it, that's bad, but still, you can't tell people what to believe. But to make it all up...just wow. That's profiting on the misery of others.

He definitely profited off their misery. What is to be done? That's the question. You, like Jones but not quite to the same extent, have a voice in the public forum. What do you say? What is the consequence that is appropriate for causing so much pain with lies that destroy?

 

[public hermit]

People have been searching out conservative Supreme Court justices and threatening their lives as well but that's been labeled as free speech, or the freedom to protest. People also have been calling Trump supporters liars for pointing out election irregularities. But that has been considered to be acceptable to do because certain people agree with that opinion. People are called liars and deniers for not agreeing with the climate change conspiracy, but that type of slander seems to be OK as well. So why should anyone care if a radio talk show host states his own opinions?

Wonderful. Create a thread or move on.

 

[Aldebaran]

Wonderful. Create a thread or move on.

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"?

 

[Saucy]

He definitely profited off their misery. What is to be done? That's the question. You, like Jones but not quite to the same extent, have a voice in the public forum. What do you say? What is the consequence that is appropriate for causing so much pain with lies that destroy?

I admit that's a difficult answer. I'm a staunch defender of free speech. I very much dislike this woke movement where people try to cancel others for sharing their opinion on things. How long will it be before most Christian thought is considered a hate crime and deemed illegal? This is what I'm having trouble with. The Supreme Court affirmed that even hate speech is protected under the First Amendment.

I just don't know where that line should be drawn. I believe companies have the right to de-platform Alex Jones and I believe they have. All he has left is his own website. I just saw a clip of the trial where his show revealed a picture of the judge on fire. The lawyer asked him what if his followers take that literally and try to do something?

I didn't grow up in a generation that equates speech to violence. I grew up with "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." So, my final answer is I think he should be de-platformed by private companies who should choose to do so. They have that right. This $4 million fine is reasonable for the harm he caused others. But he shouldn't be prosecuted.

 

[public hermit]

How long will it be before most Christian thought is considered a hate crime and deemed illegal?

Friend, your conscious space is between you and the ever-present Creator. No one can take from us the ubiquitous, divine presence. That is absolutely not the problem. 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?

 

[Saucy]

Friend, your conscious space is between you and the ever-present Creator. No one can take from us the ubiquitous, divine presence. That is absolutely not the problem. 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?

You make a really good point. I didn't think about it that way. I appreciate this conversation greatly!

 

[Occams Barber]

I admit that's a difficult answer. I'm a staunch defender of free speech. I very much dislike this woke movement where people try to cancel others for sharing their opinion on things. How long will it be before most Christian thought is considered a hate crime and deemed illegal? This is what I'm having trouble with. The Supreme Court affirmed that even hate speech is protected under the First Amendment.

You're an American. You'll find that in developed nations outside of the US more emphasis is likely to be placed on responsibilities rather than rights: i.e. on the people as a whole as opposed to the individual. This is part of the reason you'll see us (the non-Americans) deploring things like your gun ownership and health system. In my country we don't have a Bill of Rights and arguably don't need one. We would also qualify as 'socialist' based on the American (mis)understanding of the term.

One reason to avoid a Bill of Rights is the danger of locking yourself in to particular rights when circumstances change. Freedom of speech is a good and proper thing except when its advantages are eroded by misuse. When freedom to lie and freedom to vilify or threaten, are exercised on a grand scale then it's not unreasonable to consider misused speech a danger to society requiring some level of control. Its not unlike the right to bear arms when the risk associated with free access to guns exceeds the risk of gun limitation. You may not agree that that point has been reached in your country but you must accept that this is a possibility.

Christian 'thought' is not a danger but Christian bigotry is a danger to some parts of the population. My view is that Christianity should be treated like any other institution - that is, subject to the same legal or ethical rules. This means that Christianity can and should be subject to the same formal and informal rules we apply to everyone else - no special treatment.

OB

 

[Tom 1]

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.

A weekend fireside chat type show in which he is obliged to explain why everything he has ever said is wrong, followed by conjectures from various experts on why anyone would ever believe anything he ever said he is obliged to take part in. Maybe a shock collar type lie detector would spice it up a bit.

 

[Blade]

Had to edit this..I read other places and I see what this is really about. Pass

 

[com7fy8]

Yeah, the repercussions of his lies are horrendous. People searched out Sandy Hook families to call them liars and threatened their lives.

But why did he lie about this?

And why would total strangers want to hunt those parents down and threaten to kill them? Even if they did lie, why would they want to threaten to kill them?

 

[DaisyDay]

What his followers do are not his responsibility.

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.

You can't pin it to him because you don't like him.

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

There is no such thing as crime by association.

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

A person is free to say as many stupid things as he wants as long as he doesn't request for harm to be done. I know who Alex Jones is but I don't follow him. But as far as I know he only says conspiratorial things and stops short of asking for direct action.

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.

 

[DaisyDay]

But why did he lie about this?

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

]And why would total strangers want to hunt those parents down and threaten to kill them? Even if they did lie, why would they want to threaten to kill them?

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?

 

[Hank77]

Then it should have been those who made the threatening phone calls being put on trial.

Them too.

 

[Aldebaran]

Them too.

Them, first and foremost. Yet we're not seeing it happen. It's better TV viewing to go after conservative talk show hosts.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

Well, I think the compensatory damages just awarded yesterday, the $4 million, are perhaps enough to constitute a fair payment for the libels and slanders he did to the plaintiffs, the actual harms such as being threatened and harassed, and having to curtail their lives, and worse, all those direct harms Jones caused to happen to those families.
(though I read there is a 2nd phase of verdict coming on punitive damages also)

 

[Halbhh]

Them, first and foremost. Yet we're not seeing it happen. It's better TV viewing to go after conservative talk show hosts.

Would it be fine if I was a talk show host to get people riled up so that they physically threatened you over and over?

(the answer is: of course not. Free speech doesn't include the right to do slanders and provoke threats of violent attacks on people)

 

[Hank77]

$4m-
The purpose of compensatory damages is to compensate the victim of any harm or wrongdoing.

Second phase-
Punitive damages are given on top of compensatory damages when the misconduct was deemed grossly negligent, intentional, or malicious. These are designed to deter the defendant from repeating harm or misconduct in the future.

 

[Aldebaran]

Would it be fine if I was a talk show host to get people riled up so that they physically threatened you over and over?

(the answer is: of course not. Free speech doesn't include the right to do slanders and provoke threats of violent attacks on people)

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

 

[Occams Barber]

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