> That isn’t even phrased as a “what if” — it’s asserting that Sandy Hook was staged. It’s framed as a truth, not a possibility, and the jury found that Alex Jones knew it wasn’t true when he was saying it.
I think the deliberate maliciousness of it should bare more punishment, but I still think $1B is extremely unreasonable.
It's also absurd to me that a judge should have the right to make up an arbitrarily big number as a means to inflect a secondary punishment. $1 million is discouragement, $1 billion is an attempt to destroy the business and his life. While I have no sympathy for Jones, I still find this problematic if what you're saying is true.
They have the ability to determine punitive damages within guidelines (many states have caps, for example), and if the defendant feels the damages are unreasonable they have every right to appeal to a higher court. Eventually the Supreme Court may make an unappealable decision, but the appeals process has to stop somewhere.
And at some point society needs a way to tell people who ignore lesser consequences that they don't get to participate in that society any more. In this case I think Alex Jones crossed enough malicious lines to deserve it; he's in bad shape because he's the kind of person who accuses school shooting survivors of fraud even though he knew he wasn't true! He had every chance in the world to back off and apologize, but he didn't. He tried to avoid facing judgement by hiding behind bankruptcy. He is a very bad human being.
Now, is that always the case for this kind of judgement? Nope, sometimes the system fails. Some people would say Gawker is an example of that failure. I am not totally sure about that one, but even if it is... I'm reluctant to toss out an entire system unless it's a systemic problem. And Alex Jones experiencing consequences for lying for profit does not seem, to me, to be evidence of a systemic problem.
Thank you for engaging with me in good faith and helping me understand your perspective.
> And at some point society needs a way to tell people who ignore lesser consequences that they don't get to participate in that society any more. In this case I think Alex Jones crossed enough malicious lines to deserve it; he's in bad shape because he's the kind of person who accuses school shooting survivors of fraud even though he knew he wasn't true! He had every chance in the world to back off and apologize, but he didn't. He tried to avoid facing judgement by hiding behind bankruptcy. He is a very bad human being.
I do agree that he deserved to be punished, and it's interesting because I also agree he deserved it.
I suspect it's because I'm wired extremely libertarian that I don't agree with the $1b damages judgement.
Fundamentally I don't like a system which has the power to make you pay $1b because you lied and hurt people. Even though I acknowledge these things are bad I think are deserving of punishment.
Maybe a good analogy is kids on motorbikes – motorbikes are deathtraps and anyone who allows their kid to ride on a motorbike without deserves to have their head kicked in. But no more what stats I cite for whatever reason it's one of those things where people just say, "don't care, I should be allowed to do that even if I'm risking killing my kid". I'm kinda like that with everything. I don't know why. I don't choose it, I just seem to prefer liberty at the cost of harm in almost all cases.
A just society would be free to take care of individuals like Alex Jones in whatever why they see fit.
FWIW, I don't think "don't get to participate in that society" is exactly the same as punishment, but it certainly can have that aspect for the theoretical abuser so I'm probably quibbling over a semantic discussion. I just care much more about deterrence than punishment.
Kids on motorbikes is a good analogy. The line I'd draw is between dumb actions that cause harm only to the actor and dumb actions that cause harm to others. Another, more charged analogy is smoking in public -- I have no doubt that the world is better when fewer people do this. It both reduces harm to others by a measurable amount and, since it reduces the overall number of smokers, reduces the cost to society created by people with poorer health.
But wow there are a ton of implications to just blindly saying that's a good idea. The implication that it's OK to mandate behaviors in order to improve an individual's health is not one I'd accept universally, to choose just one example.
Ideally you want people to recognize that Alex Jones is a bad actor and ignore him by themselves, which mitigates the harm he's doing to others by lying. I have no idea how to get there, though.
I think the deliberate maliciousness of it should bare more punishment, but I still think $1B is extremely unreasonable.
It's also absurd to me that a judge should have the right to make up an arbitrarily big number as a means to inflect a secondary punishment. $1 million is discouragement, $1 billion is an attempt to destroy the business and his life. While I have no sympathy for Jones, I still find this problematic if what you're saying is true.