It’s too late to undo the damage inflicted by Alex Jones and his abominable smearing of the families of the children murdered in the Sandy Hook massacre, but what if a precedent has now been established that media figures can be held accountable if the conspiracy theories they’re peddling result in harm? Who might be liable for damages?
Alex Jones again: termed “almost certainly the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America” by the anti-hate Southern Poverty Law Centre, Jones has targeted a vast array of other groups and issues, including Jews, Muslims, COVID, vaccines, the “stolen election” and the “great replacement theory”. In May this year, a man targeting Black people murdered 10 in Buffalo in May, following the publication of an online screed on the great replacement theory.
Tucker Carlson: Fox News’ highest-profile broadcaster was such an avid spreader of the racist “great replacement theory” that one of America’s most-venerated and oldest anti-hate groups, the Anti-Defamation League, called for Carlson to be deplatformed after futilely complaining to Fox News about him in 2021. That call came after the Buffalo shooting — in its coverage, Fox did not mention the murderer’s motivation.
Tucker Carlson again: while many Fox News figures claimed COVID was a hoax or that vaccines were dangerous, Carlson aired claims that vaccines were dangerous and a plot against Christians, and has been singled out by the families of deceased people who refused to take vaccines. New evidence emerged last week that Fox News had a verifiable impact in reducing vaccine uptake in the United States. However, a case brought by a public advocacy group in 2020 against Fox News for COVID denialism was dismissed.
Donald Trump: as America’s conspiracy theorist-in-chief, Trump downplayed COVID, even called it a hoax, before backtracking to say he meant criticism of his handling of it was a hoax, called violent right-wing extremists “very fine people”, called the media the “enemy of the people”, peddled the “birther” lie about Barack Obama and encouraged white nationalist militants. But his lies about a stolen election and his direct incitement of a violent attack on Congress on January 6 2021, in which several protesters and law enforcement officers died, suggest the families of all of the deceased may have a case for damages against him — one that may become stronger if the US Justice Department decides to prosecute Trump in relation to January 6.
Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro, Maria Bartiromo, sundry other Fox broadcasters, One America Network, Newsmax: the media outlets that promulgated Donald Trump’s “stolen election” lie and aired conspiracy theories about Trump being deprived of victory were part of the right-wing media ecosystem that enabled Trump. Noteworthy: in November 2020, Fox News reached a settlement with the parents of Seth Rich, a Democrat staffer killed in 2016, whose death was exploited by conspiracy theorists, including on Fox News.
The above, but in relation to voting machines: well, that’s already happening. A long list of Fox News broadcasters and Trump associates and supporters are being sued by Dominion Voting Systems over their claims that the machines were used as part of the “stolen election”. Some are being sued by Smartmatic as well. Dominion is still considering whether to sue Trump too.
Great news for those who believe in free (but accountable for lying) press. Hope to see more of it. If only Julian could be released for his honesty.
It’s a difficult issue to dissect. Take away the context of Jones’s odious comments, and the issue over free speech does play a part. He wasn’t shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but making an argument as to how the world is to other adults who then decided to take that information into their own hands.
What enables Jones / Carlson / Trump is their audience. It separates them from the person wearing a tinfoil hat and a “THE END IS NIGH” sign.
There will always be those we call crazy who peddle nonsense, and those who believe what they’re saying is truth when it is evidently farfetched or nonsensical to the rest of us. We should really be asking questions of why they manage to take a hold in our society, and do what we can to minimise that. Then the ranting loonies well be like the Jesus nutters and consigned to screaming on street corners.
In the main, “why they manage to take a hold in our society” seems fairly straightforward. Large numbers of any given population are not intelligent enough to work things out for themselves. And many of those people are the ones struggling to feed their families and struggling to keep a roof over their heads. They are angry, sometimes without even knowing why they are or with whom they are angry. But they are angry that life is such a struggle for them. Along come loud and strident voices giving them a focus for their anger and ‘presto’ – they jump on the bandwagon. Their anger and dissatisfaction is exacerbated by a constant barrage of ‘news’ and gossip covering the rich and famous – from Kardashians to Bezos and Musk – which only serves to highlight their pitiful existence at the bottom of the heap. And thus they become ripe for conversion to whatever conspiracy theory gives them an outlet and target for that anger. And that is why “they” manage to take hold.
However, this does not explain why so much of their support e.g. Capitol Hill, conspiracy theories, platforming Christianity etc. comes from comfortable middle class, and funding from foundations or charities of the wealthy middle class?
“Large numbers of any given population are not intelligent enough to work things out for themselves.”
I feel this is a cop-out. What makes an idea attractive or repulsive to us isn’t simply a matter of intelligence, but has way more to do with how we see the world and how the information we are hearing coheres with that.
To my mind, Alex Jones taps into a paranoia about the government, and his preaching (no better word for that) is amenable in an age where trust in authorities and institutions is eroded. While I shed no tears for Jones – and have a bottle of champagne on ice for when the money finally exchanges hands from this case – I am far more concerned that we treat Jones as causes rather than as a parasite on the wider problems that we should be addressing.
Speaking of “..a cop-out.” – is not “..with how we see the world…” exactly that?
Same people see things as they are, some as they wish, others as it could/might/should be and still others, I’d suggest the majority, hardly at all, overwhelmed “…with the information we are hearing…” and choose not to bother understanding.
A tiny minority does understand and chooses to ‘tend their own garden’ having had the experience and/or wisdom to know that “…the wider problems…” are not a bug but a feature of the system because it suits those with power.
I agree that both Joneses (the septic & our own) are merely symptoms of the wider problem rather than the cause.
In his case it was not the issue of free speech but the damage he did to the surviving relatives by slandering them that lead to the punitive damages. And his defence that he was merely expressing the truth believed by some, was known not to be true, and should have been obvious to him.
The editors and legal department of the media, such as Fox news have been asleep at the wheel. Most Journalist’s I am aware of, have possible continuous issues run by their legal department prior to publication.
No doubt they are ‘continuous’ but probably also contentious.
Before Bernard and the commentor get to much more carried away with all this, please note there is exactly ZERO precedent being created by this case. Jones lost by DEFAULT because he didn’t take the case seriously. Thanks to the strength of the US 1st Amendment he likely would have won, or at least it would have been a much closer decision, but there was no decision on the issue because he defaulted.
Not true. If he had settled there would be no precedent. But for lower courts within the jurisdiction it does set precedent and may be persuasive but not binding outside the state.
What about media claims that the vaccines prevented transmission of Covid?
How can the idiocies and dangerous beliefs which fester in the darkness of censorship be countered without free speech?
I’d much rather that racists, homophobes, religious nutters and other loonies make their proclivities plain and businesses similarly inclined put up large signs defining with whom they will or will not deal.
Makes it so much easier to avoid them and we are spared the hypocrisies, smarmy evasions and subtle discriminations so often deployed, not least because when called out victimhood is claimed.
This case is literally an example of how they can be countered.
Way to miss the point – without free speech those malignant points of view, opinions and calumnies would have be entirely underground and shared only amongst those deemed to be unfit for polite society and not noticed until they’d metastasized into something even more virulent.