The only thing I disagree with is punitive damages which are out of all proportion to the loss incurred. Punitive damages are only allowed in limited circumstances in my country, England, and they are still limited to some connection between the wrong and the alleged loss.
Make no mistake though, Jones is a scumbag. If he had followed the rules the other side would have had to prove actual malice. He did not follow the rules and he lost because of it.
…for speech. If this is your position then you need to state it in its entirety and stand by it.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Come on, say that outright and with no ambiguity, and then stick around and defend your belief. I’d love to finally meet someone who believes this who has the courage to say it and defend it, but so far, without exception, everyone I’ve encountered who believes what you believe has turned out to be a coward.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit. You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never been challenged and never needed to defend your positions. So you assume you must be right …. because after all, nobody has ever proved you wrong. But the truth is, this is the very first time in your life where proving you wrong was even allowed.
Some come on! Don’t be a coward! Confirm that you think a person should be punished for their speech.
Didnt Alex Jones also get told by the judge that he was not allowed to argue his innocence? That the entire trial was just arguing from the prosecution about how much restitut.. extortion was to be applied?
Yep. I doubt Vordrak knows any of that. It's just like I said to him: he has lived his whole life in an ideological bubble. I am cautiously hopeful that he's willing to stick around and have a discussion, but I have never, ever, seen a Leftist do that. They alway run away, or (on reddit) use bullying tactics like blocking or banning.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit.
Wrong - he's been on this side of the Internet for a while; he showed up from time to time on KIA1 back when we were all on Reddit circa 2015. And he's been pushing for censorship the entire time. He knows exactly what he's saying and for some reason chooses to say it anyway.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Semi-rhetorical questions (I do not accuse Jones of what follows, just throwing this up to consider what free speech absolutism should entail): what do think of rules about defamation or libel/slander? Or how should people be allowed to respond to written or verbal threats? What counts as speech?
Society has broadly accepted some amount of punishment or retribution for "improper" speech or lying (see also perjury, abetting, entrapment, harassment, disturbing the peace, misleading business partners or investors). I think the burden of proof might be on 'our' end to counteract some or all rules against badspeak.
I think that libel and slander laws are fine as they are.
The distinction that I draw is in the mind of the person communicating. The legal term is "mens rea" if you want to look it up.
If I know that something is a lie - I know it for a fact - but I say it anyway - I knowingly communicate a lie - AND ALSO I do this with the motive of materially harming you - "materially" meaning that I intend to destroy your business through repetitional damage, for example ...
... then the issue at hand is NOT the speech. Then the issue is the "mens rea" - the "guilty mind" - and the motive to cause harm.
And I think (hope, anyway) that that's what libel and slander laws address.
So, I'll give an example of something that must be protected, for society to be free, vs. something that should be prosecuted:
Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of raping her. I should be allowed to believe Ford. For whatever reason, on whatever basis, I should be allowed to have that thought. I should also be allowed to believe Kavanaugh, for whatever reason or reasons are compelling to me.
So, if I go around saying, "Kavanaugh is a rapist!" that must be protected speech. It I go around saying, "Ford is a liar" that must be protected too ...because my right to think that must be protected.
On the other hand, if Ford knows for a fact that what she's saying is a lie, and her motive (especially in waiting until he was nominated to the supreme court) is specifically to materially harm him, then she should be prosecuted ...but not for her speech. She should be prosecuted for lying with that specific motive.
So, I think a person must be allowed to think and say whatever they truly believe ...even if they're wrong. If you really believe that Kavanaugh is a rapist, or your really believe that Bush did 911, or you really believe that Trump is hitler, you must be allowed to think and say it.
But if you don't actually believe, but you say it anyway AND your motive is to materially harm (not emotionally, but materially) then I think you should face financial repercussions.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Well yeah, sometimes. To quote US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v US, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic". Freedom of speech is not freedom to write monumental falsehoods in the knowledge it is not true. That is called, 'malicious defamation'.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit.
You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never
been challenged and never needed to defend your positions
Wut ...? I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger who has been harassed by police over my positions and has had to take legal action against them, representing myself, to force them to back down. I even published the police apology in my article here.
Speaking of defending my position, I've been (counter)-sued in the past for defamation and defended myself and won and here is the public judgment. Unlike Jones, I complied with court rules and then flayed the other side's case to death with (legitimate) procedural motions.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Well yeah, sometimes.
Well, you're wrong. All speech, of any nature must always be allowed. And not even the supreme court quote rebuts that:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic"
The speech is protected. Maliciously causing panic is not protected.
You MIGHT cause panic through speech, but you might also cause it by igniting a smoke grenade. Either way, the crime is maliciously causing panic, not speech.
And it's wrong to conclude, "he was punished for his speech"
It's wrong in exactly the same way that a Leftist is wrong when they say things like, "he was shot by police for driving while black" - no, he wasn't.
Both of those are the same cognitive error - failure to accurately ascribe a cause to an effect.
I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger
My apologies. Got ahead of myself.
I thought there was general agreement that Jones is entitled to his opinion, even if his opinion is batshit crazy. He did not intend, nor did he participate in any "harassment" - and the case against him was frivolous from the start.
One anecdote: when they demanded he turn over his emails, he turned them all over. Apparently in his spam folder there were illegal photos that he wasn't aware of. They then claimed he was trying to get them in trouble by sending them.
Alex Jones deserved to be punished. He was the subject of a default judgment due to litigation misconduct. He did not answer questions or comply with discovery. After he lost and had damages awarded against him, the bankruptcy court found he could not discharge many of his debts in bankruptcy due to "wilful or malicious injury".
The only thing I disagree with is punitive damages which are out of all proportion to the loss incurred. Punitive damages are only allowed in limited circumstances in my country, England, and they are still limited to some connection between the wrong and the alleged loss.
Make no mistake though, Jones is a scumbag. If he had followed the rules the other side would have had to prove actual malice. He did not follow the rules and he lost because of it.
…for speech. If this is your position then you need to state it in its entirety and stand by it.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Come on, say that outright and with no ambiguity, and then stick around and defend your belief. I’d love to finally meet someone who believes this who has the courage to say it and defend it, but so far, without exception, everyone I’ve encountered who believes what you believe has turned out to be a coward.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit. You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never been challenged and never needed to defend your positions. So you assume you must be right …. because after all, nobody has ever proved you wrong. But the truth is, this is the very first time in your life where proving you wrong was even allowed.
Some come on! Don’t be a coward! Confirm that you think a person should be punished for their speech.
Didnt Alex Jones also get told by the judge that he was not allowed to argue his innocence? That the entire trial was just arguing from the prosecution about how much restitut.. extortion was to be applied?
Yep. I doubt Vordrak knows any of that. It's just like I said to him: he has lived his whole life in an ideological bubble. I am cautiously hopeful that he's willing to stick around and have a discussion, but I have never, ever, seen a Leftist do that. They alway run away, or (on reddit) use bullying tactics like blocking or banning.
Yes, explicitly. There was no trial. He faced a default judgement and was told that he could no longer argue his innocence to the jury.
Wrong - he's been on this side of the Internet for a while; he showed up from time to time on KIA1 back when we were all on Reddit circa 2015. And he's been pushing for censorship the entire time. He knows exactly what he's saying and for some reason chooses to say it anyway.
Semi-rhetorical questions (I do not accuse Jones of what follows, just throwing this up to consider what free speech absolutism should entail): what do think of rules about defamation or libel/slander? Or how should people be allowed to respond to written or verbal threats? What counts as speech?
Society has broadly accepted some amount of punishment or retribution for "improper" speech or lying (see also perjury, abetting, entrapment, harassment, disturbing the peace, misleading business partners or investors). I think the burden of proof might be on 'our' end to counteract some or all rules against badspeak.
I think that libel and slander laws are fine as they are.
The distinction that I draw is in the mind of the person communicating. The legal term is "mens rea" if you want to look it up.
If I know that something is a lie - I know it for a fact - but I say it anyway - I knowingly communicate a lie - AND ALSO I do this with the motive of materially harming you - "materially" meaning that I intend to destroy your business through repetitional damage, for example ...
... then the issue at hand is NOT the speech. Then the issue is the "mens rea" - the "guilty mind" - and the motive to cause harm.
And I think (hope, anyway) that that's what libel and slander laws address.
So, I'll give an example of something that must be protected, for society to be free, vs. something that should be prosecuted:
Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of raping her. I should be allowed to believe Ford. For whatever reason, on whatever basis, I should be allowed to have that thought. I should also be allowed to believe Kavanaugh, for whatever reason or reasons are compelling to me.
So, if I go around saying, "Kavanaugh is a rapist!" that must be protected speech. It I go around saying, "Ford is a liar" that must be protected too ...because my right to think that must be protected.
On the other hand, if Ford knows for a fact that what she's saying is a lie, and her motive (especially in waiting until he was nominated to the supreme court) is specifically to materially harm him, then she should be prosecuted ...but not for her speech. She should be prosecuted for lying with that specific motive.
So, I think a person must be allowed to think and say whatever they truly believe ...even if they're wrong. If you really believe that Kavanaugh is a rapist, or your really believe that Bush did 911, or you really believe that Trump is hitler, you must be allowed to think and say it.
But if you don't actually believe, but you say it anyway AND your motive is to materially harm (not emotionally, but materially) then I think you should face financial repercussions.
Hi there,
Well yeah, sometimes. To quote US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v US, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic". Freedom of speech is not freedom to write monumental falsehoods in the knowledge it is not true. That is called, 'malicious defamation'.
Wut ...? I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger who has been harassed by police over my positions and has had to take legal action against them, representing myself, to force them to back down. I even published the police apology in my article here.
Speaking of defending my position, I've been (counter)-sued in the past for defamation and defended myself and won and here is the public judgment. Unlike Jones, I complied with court rules and then flayed the other side's case to death with (legitimate) procedural motions.
Well, you're wrong. All speech, of any nature must always be allowed. And not even the supreme court quote rebuts that:
The speech is protected. Maliciously causing panic is not protected.
You MIGHT cause panic through speech, but you might also cause it by igniting a smoke grenade. Either way, the crime is maliciously causing panic, not speech.
And it's wrong to conclude, "he was punished for his speech"
It's wrong in exactly the same way that a Leftist is wrong when they say things like, "he was shot by police for driving while black" - no, he wasn't.
Both of those are the same cognitive error - failure to accurately ascribe a cause to an effect.
My apologies. Got ahead of myself.
I thought there was general agreement that Jones is entitled to his opinion, even if his opinion is batshit crazy. He did not intend, nor did he participate in any "harassment" - and the case against him was frivolous from the start.
One anecdote: when they demanded he turn over his emails, he turned them all over. Apparently in his spam folder there were illegal photos that he wasn't aware of. They then claimed he was trying to get them in trouble by sending them.