Hacker News Reader

> If nutjob A makes a defamatory statement about you, but doesn't tell anyone to do anything, and then nutjob B harasses you after hearing what nutjob A said, nutjob B is the one who is legally responsible for the harassment. Nutjob A is responsible for the defamation, but not for what other nutjobs might decide to do.

Courts and jurors are completely fine with finding that the behavior of nutjob B (and C and D and E and F) that are predictable from the defamation are part of the damages associated with the defamation.

So, yes, nutjob A _does_ have legal liability for the damages caused by nutjobs B and C and D and E and F that are a predictable consequence of the defamation.

The law does not require "direct evidence" of the connection to every instance of harassment. It requires enough evidence that a jury can decide a "but for" causation is more likely than not. Jurors are perfectly capable of making deductions and inferences such as "person A with a massive platform lied repeatedly for years", and then "hundreds of nutjobs harassed plaintiffs based on the same lies", connecting those two facts, and deciding that it's more likely than not that the nutjobs wouldn't have harassed the person if not for person A's lies.

> Courts and jurors are completely fine with finding that the behavior of nutjob B (and C and D and E and F) that are predictable from the defamation are part of the damages associated with the defamation.

Do you have any actual cases where that was the ruling?

I mean, it's basically the very core of the typical harms that arise from defamation.

Almost always the economic harms that arise from defamation are the result of third parties responding to the defamatory content. If you couldn't incorporate the actions of third parties into the calculation of economic harm, then there would almost never be economic harm from defamation.

As for specific court cases, take a look at Gibson Bros., Inc v. Oberlin College. A jury awarded Gibson's Bakery $11M in compensatory damages (and another $33M in economic damages). Of the compensatory damages, Gibson had argued that, among other things Oberlin college should be responsible for the damages arising from:

"They blamed Oberlin for repeated vandalism and property damage and for Grandpa Gibson breaking his back while investigating the source of someone pounding on his apartment door in the middle of the night"

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2022/2022-O...

Two other examples, of course, would be the recent Alex Jones cases in TX and CT where the same reasoning also let to economic damage awards...

> it's basically the very core of the typical harms that arise from defamation

I understand that this is the opinion of you and others. That doesn't make it the law.

> take a look at Gibson Bros., Inc v. Oberlin College

In that case, there was evidence of communications by college officials saying things like "I hope we rain fire and brimstone down on that store". Also, the college has a responsibility for the behavior of its students that Alex Jones and his associates and employees do not have for the behavior of random nutjobs that have no association with them. So the facts in the cases are different and I don't think the Oberlin case shows a general justification for "damages from harassment" being part of a defamation claim.

> Two other examples, of course, would be the recent Alex Jones cases in TX and CT where the same reasoning also let to economic damage awards...

I didn't see that in any of the actual legal documents in those cases.

> I understand that this is the opinion of you and others. That doesn't make it the law.

It's not really a question of law. It's more a question of fact ("were these claimed economic harms caused by the statement"), which means its a question for the jury. Which means it's the opinion of the jury that matters.

As far as "the law" on this topic, typically the most relevant thing will be the jury instructions. These will vary from state to state, but let's take a look at Virginia's since those were the first I found online.

I'll highlight again my claim that we're evaluating:

"Courts and jurors are completely fine with finding that the behavior of nutjob B (and C and D and E and F) that are predictable from the defamation are part of the damages associated with the defamation."

Let's look at the 37.100 for Actual Damages from the VA pattern jury instructions: https://www.vacourts.gov/courts/circuit/resources/model_jury...

> ...in determining the amount of damages to which he is entitled, you may take into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the statement, the occasion on which it was made and the extent of its publication, the nature and character of the insult, *the probable effect on those who heard the statement*, and its probable and natural effect upon the plaintiff's personal feelings and upon his standing in the community and in business

I've indicated the key section which directly supports my claim. I'll turn it over to you. Can you find a state's pattern jury instructions that *don't* behave the way I suggest? I'm not familiar with all 50 states defamation laws, but I'll be very surprised if you find a single state that doesn't allow the jury to include the predictable actions of third parties based on the defamation as part of the harms of defamation.

> Let's look at the 37.100 for Actual Damages from the VA pattern jury instructions*

"The probable effect on those who heard the statement" is ambiguous. Does it mean the effect on their opinion of the plaintiff? Or does it mean the effect on their actions?

Legally, I believe it's the first. The defendant can be held responsible for the probable effects of their defamatory false statements as far as inducing negative opinions in others regarding the plaintiff. But the defendant cannot be held responsible for some other nutjob, who is not an associate or employee or in some other relationship with the defendant, choosing to harass the plaintiff based on nothing more than defamatory false statements. There would have to be something in the statements that explicitly incited others to commit wrongful acts, instead of just inducing them to hold negative opinions. And, as I have said, in the Alex Jones case I have not found anything that alleges or attributes incitement on the part of Jones.

This is an instance of a more general legal principle that individuals are free agents and are presumed to be in control of their actions, so no third party can be legally responsible for what an individual chooses to do (in the absence of some legally recognized relationship such as principal-agent). Explicit incitement can go against that presumption, but simple false statements that could reasonably induce a negative opinion cannot.

> Legally, I believe it's the first.

They're jury instructions. There isn't further legal analysis. These words mean precisely what a jury of your peers interpret them to mean. That's it.

You don't get to make a legal quibble over a juror's reasonable interpretation of the instructions. If there's ambiguity, it's up to the jury to resolve at that point (and often jury instructions deliberately have some ambiguity to them—because the job of the jury is to apply sometimes ambiguous phrases such as "reasonable care" to specific facts).

So you can't say "oh, most of society is just misinterpreting the jury instructions", because that just means you might very well lose the argument before a jury!

You say there's ambiguity. Fine. I left a challenge for you. Can you find a single state where the jury instructions are unambiguous and foreclose on my interpretation? One state where the actual harm jury instructions clearly don't allow damages from the predictable actions of third parties?

Frankly, I'm done with the discussion until you try. I've put in effort to cite cases and jury instructions to support my positions, while you've cited nothing but your own opinion.

> These words mean precisely what a jury of your peers interpret them to mean.

And how do we find out what that is? We find out by looking at what happened in actual cases.

In the Gibson case that you cited, I saw nothing that indicated that the jury awarded damages based on harassment by unrelated third parties. There is a mention of Grandpa Gibson "breaking his back", but there is nothing to indicate that the jury awarded any damages based on, for example, medical or other costs associated with that back injury. According to your position, damages for that should have been included. On mine, they shouldn't (the Gibsons would have to recover such damages from whoever was pounding on their apartment door in the middle of the night). So this instance supports my position, not yours.

Similarly, in the Alex Jones cases, I see no indication that the juries awarded any damages based on harassment by unrelated third parties. Which, again, is consistent with the position I have been arguing.

> there is nothing to indicate that the jury awarded any damages based on, for example, medical or other costs associated with that back injury

"I don't see something" is not evidence that it doesn't exist.

> So this instance supports my position, not yours.

Does it? You haven't cited anything beyond "I haven't seen it". If you want to claim it supports your position, show your work.

Show the breakdown of the $11M in damages, and show that it excludes property damages, and the medical damages.

"I see no indication that..."

Again, I'm not going to carry this conversation forward unless you actually start citing sources, and pointing to the breakdown of damages if you claim it supports your position.

For all you've demonstrated, "I've seen no indication" may only be evidence that you haven’t looked.

The law leaves room for the jury to form such moral determinations on their own, and in this case they have done so. I disagree that this is in any way disastrous.

Where have they done so in this case? As far as I can tell, the plaintiffs didn't even allege damages from harassment in this case. They alleged damages from emotional distress due to the defamation.

Its distressing because of the harassment it engenders and includes the fear of future harassment, as much as anything else. If you prefer a legal system where the jury is not allowed to weigh such factors and damage awards are determined in accordance with some statutory formula, that's your prerogative. Don't do any business in Connecticut, I guess.

This doesn't answer my question. "Harassment is distressing" might be your opinion, but I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking if you can point me at anything in the plaintiffs' claims or their lawyer's arguments or the court ruling that based any part of the damage award on harassment by people who had nothing to do with Jones but just heard what he said, instead of just on defamation by Jones and his associates and employees.

How about you look up the case and read the complaint for yourself, then you can express your opinion on how it's deficient. I don't know how the jurors parsed the evidence and haven't followed the trial so closely that I want to restate the plaintiffs' arguments.

> How about you look up the case and read the complaint for yourself

I have, and I didn't see anything about claiming damages based on harassment.

> then you can express your opinion on how it's deficient

I haven't said anything was deficient.

Well he did also send one of his own employees to fuck with the family too. Dan Bidonde (probably spelled that wrong).

If it's his own employee, then it does come within the plaintiffs' allegations (since they alleged conduct by associates and employees of Jones as well as Jones himself), but it also is different from an allegation of harassment by people not connected with Jones or his company, who harassed the plaintiffs solely on the basis of things they heard Jones say. AFAIK the plaintiffs made no allegations about the latter at all, nor was the latter considered at all by the court in awarding damages.