“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”
What I don’t understand is that, charisma goes right out the window for me when I hear such complete bs to the detriment of people. His Sandy Hook conspiracy was so hurtful that someone like that can’t be “charismatic”, in my eyes.
The test for injury and culpability here is along the same as those might be applied in a defamation or libel case.
In tort law, the best defence is being correct.
Jones was not correct. But then he is not correct on a great many things. Which works in his favor.
If a figure is known to be polarizing, a reasonable person would not believe or trust what they say. If someone is known for saying outlandish things, they ought to be seen as unreliable - or perhaps as an entertainment figure.
But this trial has subtexts far beyond righting wrongs or compensating for real loss and damage - there is political agenda about punishing and silencing a fringe voice.
And, as Juries are prone to, unpredictable and outsized awards are made based on sympathies over facts. Which is why many states cap awards or require judicial tempering.
Don't get me wrong. I think Jones and anyone who takes him seriously is a nut job, but I have to acknowledge secondary forces beyond strict application of law.
You think damages should be capped at a value that is a small fraction of what Jones earned by ruining these people's life? It sounds like you think Jones is the actual victim, not the parents.
Historically I think we assumed each side had its 1% like Alex Jones or antifa that was out there. The horror of Jones and Trump is that they revealed what we did not know. We had no idea that 60% of conservatives are right there with him, Trump, mtg and all these nuts. I don't think any of us would have ever thought that. The vast majority of republicans think an election was stolen and support trump 100%. It's either insanity, or just like iq/ lack of critical thinking skills.
The test for injury and culpability here is along the same as those might be applied in a defamation or libel case.
In tort law, the best defence is being correct.
Jones was not correct. But then he is not correct on a great many things. Which works in his favor.
If a figure is known to be polarizing, a reasonable person would not believe or trust what they say. If someone is known for saying outlandish things, they ought to be seen as unreliable - or perhaps as an entertainment figure.
But this trial has subtexts far beyond righting wrongs or compensating for real loss and damage - there is political agenda about punishing and silencing a fringe voice.
And, as Juries are prone to, unpredictable and outsized awards are made based on sympathies over facts. Which is why many states cap awards or require judicial tempering.
Don't get me wrong. I think Jones and anyone who takes him seriously is a nut job, but I have to acknowledge secondary forces beyond strict application of law.
You think damages should be capped at a value that is a small fraction of what Jones earned by ruining these people's life? It sounds like you think Jones is the actual victim, not the parents.
Well, at least your lack of logic is consistent between threads.
Absolutely nothing in what I posted spoke to what the value of judgments ought to be - or even mentioned parents.
What I stated is jury awards are often overly large and are unpredictable. Which is entirely true. And that many states require these judgments be lowered through legislated caps and/or through judicial review. Also true.
This is a trite tactic in your posts where you make up unrelated crap then pretend to ask if that is really what they meant in order to discredit a view or person.
You think damages should be capped at a value that is a small fraction of what Jones earned by ruining these people's life? It sounds like you think Jones is the actual victim, not the parents.
Well, at least your lack of logic is consistent between threads.
Absolutely nothing in what I posted spoke to what the value of judgments ought to be - or even mentioned parents.
What I stated is jury awards are often overly large and are unpredictable. Which is entirely true. And that many states require these judgments be lowered through legislated caps and/or through judicial review. Also true.
This is a trite tactic in your posts where you make up unrelated crap then pretend to ask if that is really what they meant in order to discredit a view or person.
Either you are trying to make a point in your writings, or all of your posts just consist of endless verbosity with absolutely no meaning. I guess you are claiming the latter.
Everything you post is supportive of right-wing men, who are generally awful human beings. Maybe that's just a coincidence, and you're really just a neutral arbitor of the facts.
There are an astonishing number of trumptards and MAGots. All the states in the south and a bunch of others are populated by mouth breathing trailer scum who would be much happier living in Iran or North Korea.
Ever since The Colbert Report went off the air I've tuned into Tucker to get my laughs in at right wing idiots. The democrats are tuning in for the laughs not because they're taking anything he says seriously.
The same people that want to CANCEL Tucker and drive him off of Fox News are the same ones tuning in and spending an hour with him driving up his ratings and ad revenue?
Don't hurt yourself with your next big thought ok!
Punititve damages -- purpose is to try to dissuade Jones from continuing to broadcast these lies that hurt people. Jones has continued to spread damaging lies throughout the trial, lies about the judge and others. I hope the other lawsuits take nearly all his money. Will it dissuade him? Maybe. And maybe it will dissuade others.
The same people that want to CANCEL Tucker and drive him off of Fox News are the same ones tuning in and spending an hour with him driving up his ratings and ad revenue?
Don't hurt yourself with your next big thought ok!
Thats the only reason I would watch it too, if there is not much fun on TV
Do you really think Dems are watching it for newsworthiness or that they believe anything. It is just a matter of "let us see what this lunatic is ranting about today".
How's 'your' next big thought coming along, flushed it down toilet yet?
You may recall the messaging that wearing a mask was to prevent you from spreading droplets to others, as opposed to protecting the wearer from others. Those of us in the biz call that source control. You're controlling the problem at the source.
Again, I understand that not everyone is a medical professional, but if you've made it 2.5 years into this particular pandemic and you don't understand that, it's because you're choosing to be ignorant.
Sad to say, this is correct.
To clarify: The "correct" was in response to the material bolded above.
Either you are trying to make a point in your writings, or all of your posts just consist of endless verbosity with absolutely no meaning. I guess you are claiming the latter.
Everything you post is supportive of right-wing men, who are generally awful human beings. Maybe that's just a coincidence, and you're really just a neutral arbitor of the facts.
Reading comprehension does not seem to be a strong suit
You missed the part where I said Alex Jones and anyone who believes him is a nut job.
But, hey, don’t let facts get in the way of a good rant.
