Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech?

No, while there are Constitutional limits (especially when the injured party is a public figure, see NY Times v. Sullivan), deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech.

> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

No, it just reinforces the existing precedent that people who deliberately or recklessly spread falsehoods about people can be sued by those injured by the falsehoods. Defamation isn't a new thing in law.

And this isn't the first time that has bitten Alex Jones.

> deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech

IANAL (I am not a lawyer; and IANAAJA—I am not an Alex Jones apologist), but I think deserves qualification. My understanding is that it’s not the falsehood which is restricted, it’s the damage caused by purveying the falsehood. If I’m not mistaken I can claim (anywhere under US jurisdiction, unless under oath or otherwise legally sworn to be truthful) that I have a cat (I don’t) without any legal risk to 1A protection whatsoever. Granted, that could raise other eyebrows which might gain legal force if I persisted, presumably around competency to care for myself (or my dog, who I assure you does exist).

Publishing falsehoods about other people is not always protected speech. (Whether the other people are considered “public” or “private” changes the standards for deciding if the speech is protected.)

While you’re right, that damages are an important factor, it’s worth noting that these don’t have to be strictly limited to direct monetary damages.

For example, Jones was defaulted on intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury’s compensatory damages were heavily weighted to IIED. So the damages can be abstract in some sense.

But yes, generally defamation requires both material false statements of fact, and damages to a specific party.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com