[dirasieb]

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

[defrost]

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.

[mech998877]

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.

[lateforwork]

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?

[mech998877]

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.

[defrost]

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.

[seattle_spring]

> 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

Those "other people" were also Alex Jones.

[tsimionescu]

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.

[someguyiguess]

That’s sounds like a first amendment violation with more steps.

[AnimalMuppet]

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.

[tzs]

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?

[triceratops]

It isn't because there's no government prosecution.

[TheCoelacanth]

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.

[jklinger410]

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.

[triceratops]

The government didn't bring this civil suit. Ruling on civil disputes is the government's role. That's not what prosecution means.

[jklinger410]

The word prosecution aside. Who rules on the outcome and enforces it? The state.

[tsimionescu]

This is an absurd line, and plainly wrong.

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.

[shermantanktop]

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.

[tsimionescu]

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).

[jklinger410]

> 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.

The distinction is nonsense to me.

[fullshark]

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.

[triceratops]

What does the first amendment have to do with slander, libel, and defamation?

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

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.

[GuinansEyebrows]

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.