![]() “They were both extreme, outrageous, shocking, deplorable. to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” the ruling said.īut it and the Jones case have key differences. In 2011, the high court voted 8-to-1 to overturn a verdict against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for picketing military funerals with signs declaring that God hates the U.S. “Trying to speculate what a jury would find is always a fool’s errand.” MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT BE SYMPATHETIC TO ANY JONES APPEAL?Ĭonservatives and liberal justices have found that some deeply offensive speech is protected. “I wouldn’t discount the possibility Jones could have prevailed,” he said. It is a fact.” Even if the parents were deemed public figures, imposing the higher standard, “I think Alex Jones would still lose,” he said.īut Covert said defamation is always a challenge to prove. “It was a verifiable fact the massacre occurred at Sandy Hook,” said Solomon. He could have contended that his statements were hyperbolic opinion - that wild, non-factual exaggeration is his schtick.īut it would have been tough to persuade jurors that he was merely riffing and opining. COULD JONES HAVE WON IF THE TRIAL WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH? “Jurors could say (Jones’ defamatory statements) is actually something we don’t want to punish very hard,” said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at the Maryland-based Freedom Forum. But as a way to limit damages, his lawyers can argue that his speech was protected. Jones can’t argue that he’s not liable for damages on the grounds that his speech was protected. CAN FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES INFLUENCE THE TRIAL’S OUTCOME? He asked them to award the plaintiffs $1. Reynal told jurors that his client has been punished enough, losing millions of dollars being booted off major social media platforms. The plaintiffs are seeking $150 million for emotional distress, as well as reputational and punitive damages. Jones argues that Heslin did just that, entering the national debate over guns by advocating for tougher gun laws on TV and before Congress. The high court, however, has said those who temporarily enter public debates can become temporary public figures. Their lawyers say they clearly aren’t in the category of politicians or celebrities who stepped voluntarily into the public arena. They must prove “actual malice,” that a false statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” ARE THE PARENTS PUBLIC FIGURES? Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court said the bar for public figures must be higher because scrutiny of them is so vital to democracy. They must merely show a false statement was made carelessly. IS IT EASIER FOR NON-PUBLIC FIGURES TO PROVE DEFAMATION? The parents suing Jones say his lies about their child’s death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones’ followers. The statement also must have done actual damage to someone’s reputation. Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly - typically via the media - and purporting that it’s true.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |