[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.

[triceratops]

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47876627 this argument is far more persuasive to me btw.

[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.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

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.

[freejazz]

The ignorance on this website is both astonishing and incredibly obnoxious

[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.

[triceratops]

The judicial branch - which decides - is independent of the executive branch - which enforces.

> The government stands on the side of the plaintiff

The executive stands on the side of whoever the judiciary ruled in favor of. It's an important distinction.