Lies are covered by the first amendment. There is a rather narrow exception for lies that can be proven to have harmed somebody, and you can prove that they knew that they were acting negligently (i.e. knew that it would case harm and knew that it was false). Those are very high bars to meet.
Beyond that, you can lie your head off. Jones has been lying for decades. This is the first time that it was so egregious that somebody managed to drag it across the finish line for a civil judgment.
"Lies are covered by the First Amendment" is not good legal analysis. Material misstatements of fact that cause damages are all actionable, regardless of how egregious they are. Statements of opinion, or unintentional misstatements of fact regarding public figures, or misstatements of fact that cause no provable damages are "protected", in the same sense all speech is protected.
Wrong. The bar for negligence is "should have performed X, but failed to do so".
Ex: A toddler dying by falling off a deck is negligence. The homeowner "should have repaired the deck", but failed to do so. (This bar would lead to negligent homicide or manslaughter, depending on jurisdiction).
Similarly, a journalist "should have done basic research", but failed to do so, is negligence. Its a much easier bar than "malice" (ie: knew it was false, but lied anyway).
EDIT: According to LII on libel: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel, there seems to be different awards for negligence, recklessness, and malice. Negligence is capped at actual injury, while recklessness and above can have punitive damages.
EDIT: Alex Jones's $965M penalty here is likely punitive? (I don't know for sure), which suggests that it was at least of the reckless level and proven so in court?
(1) No, again, the damages announced today are compensatory, not punitive.
(2) If we're talking about the "actual malice" standard, then the standard is recklessness, not negligence.
(3) None of that matters here, because Jones lost the trial by default (the evidence would have clearly shown Jones to have met the actual malice standard, but it's a moot point).
> (2) If we're talking about the "actual malice" standard, then the standard is recklessness, not negligence.
My understanding is that "actual malice" only applies to public figures. Not private figures?
EDIT: I should note that I'm working off of roughly high-school journalism + high school law levels of analysis here. I recognize I'm no expert in this subject, but we were forced to study this topic in my Journalism class before we were allowed to publish the school newspaper. I can believe it if my teacher was being extra-conservative with regards to the subjects we were allowed to cover.
Jones lawyers attempted to claim that the Sandy Hook parents were in fact public figures (again, this is all mooted by Jones eventual default of the defamation cases themselves; the conduct standards we're talking about apply pretty much entirely to the question of whether you're culpable in the first place, not what the damages are.)
I haven't followed the full details of this case specifically. And it seems like there's multiple different cases of defamation vs Alex Jones for Sandy Hook... and my own memories could be getting mixed up between them.
Good to discuss these various details in any case. Reckless vs negligence (and other such details) are very important to understand the case.
As I understand that’s not correct. Recklessness is “I did something I knew I shouldn’t have done” and negligence is “I didn’t do something I knew I should have done”.
The only thing worse than Godwin's Law on the internet is discussions of the first amendment. I've seen the exact same arguments and misunderstandings repeatedly.
It's a highly subtle right that does not mean what most people think it means. Trying to apply it in this case won't bring any value to your argument.
Beyond that, you can lie your head off. Jones has been lying for decades. This is the first time that it was so egregious that somebody managed to drag it across the finish line for a civil judgment.