i don’t understand how this is not a 1st amendment violation
can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc
First amendment prevents the federal government from preventing speech or punishing for speech (subject to a few exceptions).
This was not that.
This was a civil defamation case; the parents bought a case of actual material harm and harrassment of epic proportions before two seperate judges in two seperate states and both courts made the finding that Jones had indeed caused harm and harrassment .. and continued to do so over years.
With regards to defamation law, the first amendment does result in the USA having a higher bar for prosecution than most countries- GP still has a valid question.
The word "prosecution" implies criminal case brought by the government. This was a civil case brought by the victims.
If you mean higher bar for litigation, then maybe this lawsuit and its outcome shows that the bar isn't as high as you think when it comes to defamation?
Yes I did mean litigation (didn't know that that term was a distinction learned something today).
To my understanding the case outcome is pretty much what I would expect, even considering the first amendment raising the bar. It's also interesting that there's been so many legal shenanigans in the case that it's hard to even keep track of them all.
The principal legal shenanigan came from Jones and his team - stubbornly refusing to engage with either court via a kind of sovereign citizen "I know my first amendment rights, F- you" vibe.
That sealed the case outcome as, IIRC, at least one of the judges just ruled against them for not mounting any defence.
This seems like a good faith question to me, Jones clearly operated thinking he was protected under the first amendment, and it was not obvious to me he was going to lose his court case despite morally finding his actions repugnant.
The first amendment protects you from the government prosecuting you for the content of your speech.
The first amendment does not protect you from the results of your speech, like someone deciding they don't like you because of what you said. That person is free to dislike you for what you said and the first amendment has nothing to do with it.
Similarly, if you say things that are untrue and cause damage to others, you may be held civilly liable for the damage if they sue you and convince a jury that you lied with knowledge and intent to lie. The first amendment has nothing to do with this.
This is not a case about Sandy Hook the event - it is a defamation case by the victims of that event, that Alex Jones directly attacked.
This is the biggest difference - no one is claiming that all of the people who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 attacks were actually actors paid to pretend that they were grieving for their parents and children and friends. No one was encouraged to personally attack said victims and survivors to "expose their lies" because of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Furthermore, defamation law works very differently for claims against public personalities ("Bush did 9/11!") compared to claims against private persons ("this random child shown crying in news reports after her classmates were supposedly killed is actually pretending!"). Also, vague accusations of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy / cover up are far harder to litigate than very clear claims of massive fraud. Finally, the Sandy Hook victims were generally able to show specific damages they suffered, attacks against them by people in their community, because of Jones' actions; Dick Cheney may have been more generally hated because of claims about 9/11 conspiracies, but was not directly harasses in the same way.
Suppose I decide to do some target shooting in my yard and set up a target. One of my shots misses and goes past the target and hits your house where it causes a surprising amount of damage and you sue me.
Would you say that if a court allows that and awards you damages it is a violation of my 2nd Amendment rights with more steps?
The first amendment has never been held to give immunity for libel or slander. So if you think it's a first amendment violation, you need to learn that the first amendment does not give blanket immunity for speech that harms others.
That's not really the reason. Even in a civil case, the first amendment certainly would apply to whatever laws allow the civil case to happen.
However, the first amendment is not absolute. Defamation is still a thing in the US. The first amendment creates a higher bar than many other countries (especially for public figures, but the victims in this case aren't public figures), but it is still possible.
How is a ruling in a civil court not a form of government prosecution? It would be more correct to say that your first amendment rights stop at defaming others.
The state enforces property rights too. Let's say someone won't let me build a place of worship on their land. Is that a "first amendment violation but with more steps"?
You could make any instance of "government upholds the law" into "constitutional violation" that way.
A ruling in a civil court is very obviously not a prosecution. Because prosecutors can't, by definition, make rulings.
Laws that force the government to violate the constitution are unconstitutional. So yes, a violation but with more steps.
A ruling in a civil court that is enforced by a government is the same thing as the government ruling it, but through transitive properties. It can't be not enforced and enforced at the same time (the argument that civil is somehow not judicial).
In reality we are just griping that our government is too pussy to amend the constitution, and we've already written laws that subvert it, and those are being upheld by a corrupt/politicized supreme court and bullshit case law.
If I were to bring a civil suit against you because the comment above offended my sensibilities, it would be quickly thrown out of court because it is your first amendment right to say anything you like, with certain exceptions that the government recognizes as limitations of this right.
Even though this is a civil matter, it is still a judgement on government law. This is not some contract dispute where the parties are simply seeking arbitration, with no government involvement except as a "service provider" for this arbitration.
Alex Jones will not have a criminal record as a result of this. He has not been declared as committing a crime.
He did take actions that, by civil law, created civil liabilities. He was sued over those liabilities. He failed to participate in the civil litigation process and lost badly as a result.
Civil and criminal law are not the same thing and your insistence otherwise doesn't change the reality.
Civil and criminal law are separate things, absolutely. But the first ammendment applies to both civil and criminal law - it is a limitation on the government's ability to create laws, not just a limitation on the government's ability to pursue criminal penalties.
Alex Jones is only liable because there exists a law that the government created that says that defamation is illegal. Since this is a law, it could have been in conflict with the first ammendment - and, in fact, there have been legal challenges on this very line that reached the SC. But the Supreme Court has found that this is an acceptable limitation on the first amendment rights, with the specific limitations.
But, for example, if the US government wanted to adopt the English law on defamation, it would not be constitutional in the USA, it would run foul of the first ammendment.
> But the Supreme Court has found that this is an acceptable limitation on the first amendment rights, with the specific limitations.
Right, and I think this example is more about maintaining a civil society than it is strictly about freedom of speech. I think it's pretty clear to say that "freedom of speech" has limitations, making the word "freedom" contextually debatable.
What happens if you don't pay your civil liabilities? Civil vs criminal is a silly distinction when it comes to discussing right suppression. Jail time is not the only way to suppress a right.
You go to jail for failure to abide by a court order. Which is still distinct from going to jail for your speech.
Alex Jones can continue to say whatever he wants, from a criminal perspective. He may be somewhat more aware of the potential costs of being a professional liar now, which might cause him to make different decisions as he analyzes the cost/benefit ratio for something he wants to say.
The government won't stop him from saying whatever he chooses to say. The government might enforce costs, should he be sued for what he says and is found liable.
This is not how freedom of speech works. The civil or criminal nature of any law limiting speech is irrelevant. What is relevant is if a law limiting speech is narrow enough and if it serves a purpose that is aligned with the constitution. Anti-defamation laws clearly do serve such a prupsoe (they limit only specific types of speech that is not of public interest, and they exist to protect the victim's constitutional rights where they conflict with the a user's free speech right), so they are compatible with the first amendment, and would have still been if they added criminal penalties and not just civil effects.
The government/congress/states can't make a law or regulation that says "you have a right to never hear anyone signing in the rain". Even if such a law somehow passes, when you bring a civil suit against someone singing in the rain because you claim they violated your right (enshrined in this law) to not hear such singing, you will lose your case, as the law you based it on infringes on the first amendment rights of the singer.
Note that things would be very different if, instead of a law, you had a HOA which enacted a rule saying "singing in the rain is not allowed on the premises; violators will be fined 1000$". Assuming any signage about this is clear enough and so on, you could be forced in court to pay such a fine to the HOA, and may even end up doing jail time if you refuse even after losing a lawsuit with the HOA. The first amendment is a limitation of the state's ability to create laws, it doesn't limit private entities from limiting speech, nor the government's ability to enforce property rights behind such an ability.
> What is relevant is if a law limiting speech is narrow enough and if it serves a purpose that is aligned with the constitution. Anti-defamation laws clearly do serve such a prupsoe (they limit only specific types of speech that is not of public interest, and they exist to protect the victim's constitutional rights where they conflict with the a user's free speech right
I'm sorry, is there something in the constitution that gives you the right to not be defamed?
> is there something in the constitution that gives you the right to not be defamed
Have you considered that there's a significant cultural difference between you and the framers of the Constitution?
Those guys were mostly "gentlemen" in the 18th and 19th century sense. Lying, sullying someone's good name, and otherwise dragging them into disrepute was decidedly "ungentlemanly" conduct. I don't think most of them would consider it "free speech" that could pass without censure, no matter what the text of the constitution said. Let's not forget Alexander Hamilton died in a duel because of some words he didn't even recall saying.
> The government won't stop him from saying whatever he chooses to say. The government might enforce costs, should he be sued for what he says and is found liable.
IANAL but I think of a civil suit as a substitute for the injured party extracting justice by less civilized methods. If you wreck my fence, I can come wreck your fence in retaliation. Or I can sue you. The government is only providing the venue for resolving the dispute.
Now in reality there are political and other influences on court behavior. But the government is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant.
This is only part of civil law. Civil law also governs numerous government regulations as well. If you're fined for illegal parking, that happens in a civil court too - but it's still a suit between you and the state. Even in your example of a destroyed fence, the reason you can bring such a suit in court is that there are state or federal laws that I broke by destroying your fence. If such laws didn't exist, a judge would not help you.
What you're thinking more of is contract law - where two parties go before a judge simply to adjudicate a matter that is entirely of their own invention. If we had signed a contract that said I can touch your fence but in touching it I left a hand print on it, I might think the contract allowed me to do so, while you may think that the hand print constitutes wrecking your fence, and we can go before a judge to decide and enforce said decision. The judge then won't look at any state/federal laws, they will look only at the terms of our contract (assuming the contract itself doesn't violate any laws, of course).
> The government is only providing the venue for resolving the dispute.
The government provides the venue, the decider, the rules of engagement, and enforces the decision. The government stands on the side of the plaintiff, ready to turn the resolution (that the government decided) into the same result as if it were law.
> can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc
if you're truly interested, please check out the podcast 'Knowledge Fight' which covers alex jones and infowars in stunningly minute detail, including the defamation cases in texas and connecticut. the main host was even called as an expert witness in one of the trials to give testimony about alex jones' involvement and denial in harassing and inciting his listeners to harass the parents and survivors of the shooting.
That's fine. When the "best of the best" is offered only by a couple of companies that are not looking into our best interests, then we can discard them
can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc
reply