The fact that a conspiracy talk radio guy can get hit with a billion dollar fine for some off-hand nutso claim (that he subsequently recanted!) is a very unpromising barometer for the health of free speech in our country.
Libel, slander, and defamation are not free speech. You do not have the right to repeatedly, knowingly, lie about someone else, especially when said lies ruin peoples' lives.
> billion dollar fine for some off-hand nutso claim
It wasn't a claim, he asserted it as fact, and it wasn't just once, he did this up until he got sued, and even made up conspiracies about the trials as they were happening.
> (that he subsequently recanted!)
If Jones truly did believe he was correct about Sandy Hook being fake, the moment he found out he was wrong, he should have delivered a formal apology and begged his audience to stop harassing the families of the victims. He should have publicly rebuked people like Wolfgang Halbig and any callers who talked about the "Sandy Hook hoax" and chastised the harassers.
But he never did that. Instead it's "I already said I was sorry, I might have been wrong but I'm right like 95+% of the time, why are people so angry at me? It's all part of a plot by the globalists to shut us down, buy my iodine."
> a very unpromising barometer for the health of free speech in our country
So "free speech" is when someone with a significant media presence is able to knowingly spread lies about you that lead to over a decade of stalking and harassment with no recourse?
If you're an American, you might want to consult a lawyer on that. Our civil liberties have been heavily curtailed over the years, but this verdict isn't threatening anyone's rights.
The consequences of the speech are, however, borne by the speaker.
I'm not sure this covers all cases of consequential burdening, but it does seem to cover many of them. A future prohibition on speech, gag order, banning from online or broadcast services, etc., might be a harder case to make, though these could still be seen as sanctions on behaviour rather than content.
I'm not defending Jones at all here, his penalties are exceedingly well deserved and have been far too delayed.
If you do redefine freedom of speech thus, then what place in the world doesn't have it? Even in North Korea you can speak freely for a short while before you have to bear the consequences.
The CCP tried to suppress them for “inciting a panic” until it became obvious they couldn’t cover it up any longer
Freedom of speech is never an absolute, it had a long history of far lower significance in the United States prior to the 1950s, and has a long an complex history.
I'm not a legal scholar, I'm still researching the background and history myself. Two resources of possible interest and use to yourself and others:
Jacob Mchangama's Clear and Present Danger podcast, 40 episodes plus several special installments on the history of free expression. The creator tends rather more libertarian than I, though he's not an absolutist. That said, there's reasonably little bias I'd noted in the overall presentation, which is nuanced.
<http://www.freespeechhistory.com/>
On texts ... there's a whole heck of a lot. I've not read the Very Short Introduction title yet, but have added it to my own reading mountain/asteroid:
<https://www.worldcat.org/title/244062809>
<http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8647BBCBFB1AADAC2A4C98ED...>
Looking that up just now, the author, Nigel Warburton, is known to me from other books on philosophy which were good.
There were so many points in this saga where Alex could have made decisions that would have made the outcome less severe and he doubled down almost every time instead. Even as the last trial was wrapping up, he was going on air and defaming the judge in the case while calling one of the plaintiffs "slow" and a victim of manipulation[1].
There is such a thing as consequences for your actions.
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-railed-against-sandy-19364...
A system which produces effects extrinsically equivalent to direct proscriptions on free speech is not better than a system which explicitly proscribes some speech, and is arguably worse, because it tricks credulous people into thinking it's not as bad.
The state doesn’t need to directly destroy you financially like they do in China.
They just have a legal framework that allows lawyers to do it for them.
And we think we have so much more freedom in the west.
I have a very strong suspicion that if I started exercising my 'freedoms' in a harassing manner against you personally then suddenly your views would be very different.
I'd add that he is still free to continue lying forever. No one is stopping him from doing so.
That ... may remain to be seen. Though it does seem to presently be the case.
>That ... may remain to be seen. Though it does seem to presently be the case.
What legal mechanism might someone use to stop Alex Jones from saying whatever the hell he wants?
I mean, sure, a bullet to the brain or a successful car bomb would shut him up, but that's murder.
IIUC (IANAL), Alex Jones can, while in the United States (with certain very limited exceptions), say whatever he feels like saying.
If he defames someone (in the case we're discussing here, the families of children killed in Newtown, CT in 2012), they are also free (as they did) to sue him for such defamation.
What, exactly, do you see changing with respect to the current status quo? What legal basis would you base such changes on?
In preparing this reply, I noted this comment[0] of yours which reads, in part:
I'm not sure this covers all cases of consequential burdening, but
it does seem to cover many of them. A future prohibition on speech,
gag order, banning from online or broadcast services, etc., might
be a harder case to make, though these could still be seen as
sanctions on behaviour rather than content.
Unless Jones is criminally charged, I don't see how any of that could happen in a civil legal proceeding in the US.
Are you taking the idea that "speech has consequences" to its logical extreme and hypothesizing that private actors may curtail Jones' access to media?
I'd say that doesn't stop him from pontificating about anything on a bar stool (unless the bar owners don't like it and throw him out) or on his own private property.
Or are you hypothesizing that laws will change and his defamation activity will be criminalized?
If I misunderstand your point (always a possibility), my apologies. I'd just like to understand the mechanism(s) you're alluding to that could result in someone "stopping him from doing so[1]".
N.B.: I'll say it again: IANAL. Also, I find Jones' behavior reprehensible and hope he ends up destitute and living in a cardboard box under a highway overpass.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33185391
[1] "doing so" is, of course, referring to him spewing the slanderous bile he's been vomiting up for a decade.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunction>
In cases of professional or corporate misconduct, individuals may be stripped of professional certification (e.g., law, medical, or engineering licences), or barred from participating in specific roles within an organisation. An example, also from a civil (rather than criminal) case is this temporary bar against participating in hedge-fund activities:
<https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2016-3>
A third possibility might be to have a mandate that a representative of the plaintiff's be granted a board seat, editorial oversight, or some similar role in any future media role held by Alex Jones. I'm not aware of any specific similar instance, though lawsuits seeking, e.g., board representation, have been filed. See:
<https://www.wral.com/lawsuit-seeks-board-seats-for-unaffilia...>
In cases of cybercrime there are many instances of punishments (typically criminal law in this case) of defendants being barred from Internet access. That seems to have somewhat fallen from favour though I believe it's still practiced. A 2003 discussion:
<https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/business/barring-web-use-...>
Mind: I'm not a lawyer.
That said, none of these options involve bullets
________________________________
Late edit: Another example of extant prior restraint would be prepublication review, a process which applies to members of the intelligence and justice communities. I just heard a mention of it during a Fresh Air interview of Geoffrey Berman. It's described (for the NSA/CSS) here:
<https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/Prepublication-Review/>
That's not at play here, but does give an example of prior restraint on free speech under US jurisdiction.
It also brings up the matter of classified information and that system's impacts on free speech. C.f., Edward Snowden.
You know this isn't even close to the truth.