Discussion: New Lawsuit Reveals Challenges Of Taking ‘Fake News’ Peddlers To Court

2 Likes

The price we pay for free speech.
Unfortunately it is compounded by a population that has been dumbed down and has no critical think skills.
What would once have been ignored as the soap box rantings of a crazy person are now consumed as “facts” , fueled by a media that feeds into it for eyeballs which equal profit.

11 Likes

“the courts are very reluctant to police individual opinions.”

I don’t consider what Jones is doing on his show as a guy expressing his opinion.

14 Likes

I don’t accept that this is the price for free speech. There is a line that can be drawn here between harmful intentional distortion and voicing an unpopular decision or an honest mistake. This is dangerous to our democracy and it isn’t too hard to draw the parallels to some ugly political movements throughout world history. .

As for the specific cases here, unlike the soapbox, they can now reach millions and yes, the people consuming it are gullible, but the peddlers of this stuff know what they are doing. Whether it is to make money or manipulate political opinions, they will continue to push the line further until someone pushes back.

6 Likes

That could shield Wilson from the legal standard for defamation, which explicitly relates to false, damaging factual assertions, experts said. Call it the “a lot of people are saying” defense.

Except isn’t the reason ‘a lot of people are saying’ it is because of the fake news these folks pump out?

9 Likes

And they’re counting on another lie — “No, yer Honor, I really thought he was being part of the Deep State” — to turn the case into a he-said-she-said draw. In which case, they win.

Lying is criminal, if not a crime, especially when lying about innocent people is done for commerce, as part of an industry.

I’ll take your “Deep State” fiction, conservatives, and raise you a real “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

4 Likes

Well, Trump says he wants to change the libel laws. Maybe we could suggest he make this the change, to make it easier to go after the actual fake news purveyors - rather than making changes to protect himself?

Yeah, right.

4 Likes

Agreed… This is not something we should put up with.

Unfortunately, IMO, this is the result of the intentional dumbing down of the US. It’s much easier to get zombies to follow the crowd, then it is to convince intelligent people that up is down. Until the country reverses its attacks on education (public education in particular) I do not see that this is going to change. It has become unacceptable to think.

7 Likes

Hear, hear!

There has long been an anti-intellectual vein in this county. Richard Hofstadter wrote about this back in 1963. I may differ with some of his conclusions as to the cause, but the evidence of this strain running through public discourse was prevalent then and has only increased. Alex Jones’ BS of pig/gorilla/human hybrids is just the modern rabid variant.

The problem of how to teach critical thinking skills to the masses is extraordinarily difficult, but fully funding public education would be a good start. Once we have teacher pay and educational facilities up to a standard that befits a modern democracy, we can begin working to improve the educational cadre. Higher pay will, over time, induce better teachers to enter the workforce. This will take generations, and I’m not sure we have the time.

3 Likes

Infowars’ Alex Jones claimed in a video posted online that he “did research” and “confirmed” that Gilmore was a “high-level CIA” operative and “State Department insider with a long history of involvement in psy-ops.” Jones definitively stated that Gilmore helped orchestrate the chaos at Charlottesville and was paid $320,000 a year by Soros.

It seems he’d have a case against Jones, if nothing else. Even more so if Seth Rich’s family spanks FUX News and its reporters.

7 Likes

Gilmore and his lawyers need to subpoena Jones’ notes and computers to verify his “research”.

3 Likes

Yes, the 1st Amendment protects free speech but you can’t yell fire in a public theater, nor can you libel someone or incite violence. News shows are one thing, (not that I consider Fox a news show) but Alex Jones and others like him are opinion shows which should not hide behind news.

3 Likes

I think that discovery (if properly funded) will sink these propagandists. There’s a huge set of case law saying that you can inquire in detail into what people spreading false information knew and thought at the time. And they’re generally not smart enough to cover their trails. Jones in particular is in a cleft stick, because he’s already testified that he knowingly lies on the air (in his divorce case, where he was trying to argue that he’s not as dangerously insane as he appears.)

8 Likes

It’s actually the other way around. If he says that something is his opinion, he’s protected. But as soon as he states that he did research and discovered something to be a fact (when he knows that to be false or just doesn’t care about whether it’s true) he is toast.

5 Likes

You know, and this is just my opinion, if Soros really has hired as many people as the right, and right wing nutters claim wouldn’t that make him the largest employer in the US? Why are the true red blooded flag waving Congresscritters not investigating why there are no W-2s from Soros’ enterprises?

7 Likes

There is no reason, in principle, why the common law cannot develop a tort to deal with the fabrication and dissemination and promulgation of false factual statements with the intention of weaponizing social media to destroy someone’s reputation or cause someone serious psychic distress or put them in personal danger. New media exist, and the law of torts has always developed along with changes in society and technology. Such a tort would belong in the family of wrongs that currently includes malicious falsehood and defamation.

That isn’t to cast doubt on the defamation case against Alex Jones. This seems pretty clear to me:

In one example, Infowars’ Alex Jones claimed in a video posted online that he “did research” and “confirmed” that Gilmore was a “high-level CIA” operative and “State Department insider with a long history of involvement in psy-ops.” Jones definitively stated that Gilmore helped orchestrate the chaos at Charlottesville and was paid $320,000 a year by Soros.

The primary publisher of such a statement should be held responsible, just as newspapers and book publishers are. There isn’t much to be done–at this point–about the retweeters or repeat publishers of the statement. And there is nothing to stop the courts from holding that the existence of social media–the existence of new, weaponized amplification media that the statement-maker seeks to exploit–is a highly aggravating factor in the calculation of damages. I would like to see a jury in this case order Jones and his primary publishers to pay exemplary damages in the $100 million dollar range.

It might be said that First Amendment rights are at issue here. They certainly are. But again, there is nothing to stop the common law from developing defenses against any new tort.

And by the way: there is no such thing as an “everybody is saying it” defense. On the contrary: defamation law famously provides that to even to say “I doubt that there is any truth in the rumor that X is [disgraceful conduct]” is effectively to publish the falsehood about X.

11 Likes

I am glad that the Georgetown Law School’s Civil Rights Center has initiated this lawsuit. It may lay a foundation for attacking the Alex Jones’ of the world who dabble in fake conspiracies and falsehoods as a method to attract followers. In any event, it is a great opportunity to expose the lowlifes who publish this vile crap as part of their brand or business model. I am only sorry that plaintiff can’t request the Court to require the defendants to explicitly say that their “content” is fact free whenever they publish this shit.

5 Likes

I read another article on this subject that the defendants had chosen to settle for money rather than have these cases taken to court so it seems to me that the grounds for litigation are legitimate and the only difference between this and past cases is that the plaintiff is refusing to settle. Furthermore if these right wing talkshow hosts know their accusations are going to release a horde of agitators upon protesters or other people who oppose the right wing views then it could easily be argued that their broadcasts are calculated to have a result that is Intimidating by causing danger and emotional stress to other persons.

1 Like

Agreed. At some point, this kind of behavior leaves the realm of expressing an opinion and becomes an act of intimidation designed to manipulate and silence others and should be subject to the body of law dealing with coercion. The question is how is it determined when and where that line is crossed.

3 Likes
Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available