U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 10:38 PM
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,916 posts, read 6,638,921 times
Reputation: 12484

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Uh, the very basics......if you are an American as compared to a Saudi....different laws and responsibilities might apply to you.
Actually, those aren't the basics as US courts are free to charge foreign nationals in absentia and request extradition if found guilty. But the same example could be applied to a US citizen making such statements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 05:15 AM
Status: "Honduras and Guatemala: Capitalism's Venezuela" (set 12 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
4,158 posts, read 2,178,677 times
Reputation: 3891
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
The concept of infliction of emotional distress isn't intended to deal with alleged harm caused from mere speech; hence, see that the Supreme Court rejected a similar claim against the Westboro Baptist Church brought by military family members that the church disgracefully picketed and verbally attacked. The Court did so on First Amendment grounds.
The Synder v Phelps case only reinforced my view that the First Amendment is antiquated and needs modifying. Or at the very least that the SCOTUS fails to see the harm that speech can do. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Germany's Basic Law (it's constitution), and the South African constitution (allowed the "Shoot the Boer" song to be declared hate speech) definitely has a more nuanced approach. They recognize that physicality is not the only way to harm a person, and contemporary scientific evidence backs it up. It's not like any of those three countries have turned into Russia (let alone North Korea) on account of these restrictions on free speech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Defamation of character and slander? While not protected by the First Amendment, you have to prove that such behavior actually caused you harm that a court can account for. The argument that the Sandy Hook families received character or similar harm from a loony bin like Alex Jones is laughable and gives Jones more reach and credit than he is due. The only legitimate harm that these families faced came from those people who actually harassed them via email/phone calls/etc. Not from a loon screaming into a video camera for YouTube upload.
It doesn't matter how off his rocker Jones is. What matters is that somebody made a very serious charge against another about a very serious matter, and they're suffering emotional distress from it. Lots of people out there believe conspiracy theories, and will accept it as true simply because a prominent radio talk show host said it. Also, conspiracy theories often tend to take a life of their own, and thus endanger those who are targets of conspiracy theories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:15 AM
 
7,476 posts, read 3,844,141 times
Reputation: 3915
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators View Post
can you imagine if the media was held responsible for their actions? CNN, MSNBC, comedy central, etc would all be shut down.
Studies have found that it`s your favorite network that`s keeping stupid people stupid.
read:http://www.businessinsider.com/study...-at-all-2012-5

What is it that the viewers of that network are less likely to know? I got that too.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#3f35968212ab
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:36 AM
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,916 posts, read 6,638,921 times
Reputation: 12484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
The Synder v Phelps case only reinforced my view that the First Amendment is antiquated and needs modifying. Or at the very least that the SCOTUS fails to see the harm that speech can do. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Germany's Basic Law (it's constitution), and the South African constitution (allowed the "Shoot the Boer" song to be declared hate speech) definitely has a more nuanced approach. They recognize that physicality is not the only way to harm a person, and contemporary scientific evidence backs it up. It's not like any of those three countries have turned into Russia (let alone North Korea) on account of these restrictions on free speech.



It doesn't matter how off his rocker Jones is. What matters is that somebody made a very serious charge against another about a very serious matter, and they're suffering emotional distress from it. Lots of people out there believe conspiracy theories, and will accept it as true simply because a prominent radio talk show host said it. Also, conspiracy theories often tend to take a life of their own, and thus endanger those who are targets of conspiracy theories.
1) No one argues that speech cannot or doesn't cause people harm. And the Court in Snyder mentioned that they don't doubt the pain that the Snyder family felt as a result of the horrible behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church. The only point at issue was whether the Snyder family could recover as a matter of law and policy for the tort of emotional distress that was the result of speech aimed at them in a public place. The Court held--thankfully, in my view--that the First Amendment prohibits such. I'll gladly take this approach than what Germany and South African have chosen to do in allowing government to determine which speech is allowed and which speech isn't.

2) Yes, Jones' mental state and reach do come into play for determining whether he should be liable for defamation and slander; again, there really isn't an emotional distress case here due to First Amendment concerns. They matter precisely because they go to the reach and influence Jones would have people who would actually have an impact on the Sandy Hook families' reputation . . . and we are talking about financial harm here. Jones and his followers are kooks, who are rightfully derided as such in the media. It is laughable to suggest that these families had their reputation ruined by someone like Alex Jones and his followers. What financial loss or harm did these families have as a result of "harm" to their reputation from Alex Jones and his followers? That's what they are going to have to show/prove in a court of law. If anything, Jones' hateful comments only increased sympathy and support for this family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top