This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, under this theory, if I repeatedly use my public platform to say "@MaiqTheTrue is murdering children in his basement," and I continue making this claim for years, even knowing that some of my followers are now harassing you (and the Sandy Hook parents weren't just having mean things said about them on the Internet, they were being followed and harassed and physically threatened in meat-space), you can hold me responsible. There is a difference between having total control over your followers and knowing what your followers are doing and not only saying nothing to discourage them, but continuing to do what you know is encouraging them.
Sort of. If you’re telling people I’m killing kids in my basement, then, sure, it’s possibly inflammatory. But it’s also something that, charitably you believe to be true. And as far as I’m concerned, this is something that should be protected unless the person is trying to provoke the response. To do otherwise can easily be abused into silencing those who hold dissident views. And even if the fans of a given dissident are mostly behaving themselves, there are always agents provocateur who would gladly make trouble for those fans, especially if the prize was that the dissident was forced into bankruptcy and silenced forever.
Now the question of whether Jones either knew or intended harassment is rather open. He would certainly know based on metrics who is listening, but I don’t think that he’s reading every comment on his articles or videos. Most people here have blogs, how much do you know about your subscribers? If your subscribers would decide to come after me, how would you even find out? Creators tend to live in a bubble, the audience isn’t really known to them unless they do a lot of public speaking. Thus I don’t think it’s clear that Jones necessarily was aware of his fans’ behavior. As far as I’m aware from dipping into old podcasts of his show, he doesn’t encourage anyone to do anything beyond buying supplements and gold coins. He doesn’t say things advocating harm or writing letters or anything like that. He just reports what (assuming charity here) he believes to be true.
Legally, I don't know how much of Jones's defense did or could rely on him claiming not to know people were being harassed. But as to your first point, I think it requires a lot of charity to assume Alex Jones sincerely believed everything he was saying (IIRC, he at one point actually made some sort of "I'm Just Asking Questions" disclaimer), and me sincerely believing you are murdering children in your basement wouldn't absolve me of responsibility if I'm causing people to show up at your house trying to free the children.
I find the argument that is setting some precedent that will "silence dissent" unconvincing; most people objecting seem to just hate the people who hate Alex Jones, and therefore him losing means the wrong people won. I suspect if an unhinged follower of Rachel Maddow really did attack Trump and he sued her and won, the same people defending Alex Jones would say she deserves it.
I think we’ve had a full eye full of what can happen when the state decides what ideas are simply too dangerous to be considered. And taking away a person’s livelihood for having said things that those in power don’t like is a huge danger to the ability to have free exchange of ideas. I think Jones is at best wrong and at worst a grifter shilling stupid products that don’t work. But there are lots of other people with ideas that they believe to be true that would absolutely be bothersome to the elites. Dissent on trans issues being a big one. The idea that someone can be induced to believe they are trans is something I think is worth taking seriously. But at the same time, a person who’s listening to that might get upset by it, or if it’s connected to things going on in their kids school, then they might harass teachers. Is that the fault of someone just stating a theory? I don’t think so, unless that person is telling people to take action. My personal bias is strongly towards not shutting down speech unless the person is clearly trying to incite criminal action. If Maddow says “Trump wants to be a dictator, somebody should stop him” that’s pretty open and close incitement. If she just says “Trump wants to be a dictator,” that’s not her trying to get a response from her viewers, it’s simply her opinion on the facts.
I feel like we are going in circles. I completely agree that no ideas should be censored and people should not be sued or persecuted by the state for expressing them, and I completely disagree that this is what happened to Alex Jones.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Once again, there was no trial on the merits.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So I have an obligation to censor myself if I know my fans are doing bad stuff? Even when they are doing it against my wishes?
If I repeatedly say that abortion clinics are mass murdering babies, am I liable if an unhinged follower blows up a clinic?
If what they are doing is disconnected from what you're saying, no. I don't think Taylor Swift is responsible for her insane fans harassing her ex-boyfriends, even though she sings songs dunking on them.
If what you are saying is "A specific group of people are vile, evil liars," and as a result, your fans begins harassing that group of people, to the point that those people are legitimately in fear for their lives, then yes, I think you have an obligation to, at the very least, publicly state "Don't do that, I do not endorse this."
To extend the Taylor Swift example, if her fans started physically threatening her exes while she kept composing pop melodies like "My Ex is a Dirtbag Who Totally Deserves to Die," I think her exes might have a legitimate civil case.
(Did Alex Jones ever, in any way, indicate that the harassment of the Sandy Hook parents was something he disapproved of?)
If they are unconnected to you or your words, no, but if your followers start doing this on the regular, and you keep talking about how abortion clinics are mass murdering babies oh look another one got blown up today, then at some point it becomes a turbulent priest scenario.
It would have to be a false statement of fact, whereas this is opinion, so no defamation liability. "My Ex kicks puppies and is a dirtbag who deserves to die" would potentially be actionable if Joe Alwyn does not, if fact, kick puppies. In the US, Swift might get away with "I was obviously joking", so not really a statement of fact, so no liability (Elon Musk successfully ran this defence after falsely accusing Vernon Unsworth of being a paedophile). But Alwyn is British and Swift's albums are published in the UK, so an English court would have jurisdiction and "I was obviously joking" is not a defence in the UK.
Again what about Maddow? What about say Tucker?
Claims about Trump being a "threat to democracy" aren't specific enough to constitute defamation. Russian agent claims could plausibly be specific enough, but it would come down to specific statements. There's also the issue that public figures such as Trump have to meet a higher standard when proving defamation claims than private citizens like the Sandy Hook parents do.
I'd also add that,. while it seems counterintuitive, wrongful death claims are almost always worth less than cases where the plaintiff is living, even when the plaintiff is in decent shape. Your hypothetical of an assassination is geared toward rock bottom damages because the relatively minimal amount of pain and suffering combined with the inability of the plaintiff to testify about that pain and suffering means you're not getting much in the way of non-economic damages. In most cases like this you'd be looking at maybe a million for the decedent, a couple hundred thousand for the widow, and maybe 50 grand for each of the kids. Maybe up that to three million because it's Trump, but these damages aren't unique and you'd have a hard time justifying more than that. Compare that with unassuming people who suffered an unimaginable loss and then had to contend with years of harassment from people who claimed they were faking it, and they're all available to testify about how much of a nightmare it was and there's little the defense can do on cross to counter. It's not a typical scenario and there aren't any clear guidelines on how to value something like that.
The bigger factor in damages in a hypothetical Trump assassination would be economic damages far in excess of what a normal person has, but this would rest on the testimony of various economic experts who would have to contend with the tendency of his companies to show a net loss for tax purposes. I'm actually working on a case right now where a guy is claiming excessive economic damages based on a speculative business venture that was derailed by the Plaintiff's death, and this shit gets messy.
I don’t think the Sandy Hook parents (or at least some of them) are private—when you speak out nationally you become a public figure.
I do agree there is always a line between opinion and fact statements. For example, if we substitute “threat to democracy” with say “insurrectionist” you’ve gotten closer to statement of fact (Maddow could still argue that what a insurrectionist is is an opinion which is what his area of law is difficult).
And yes, I agree that wrongful death is not as compensatory as living victims. But a billion dollars? Come on. That’s lunacy.
More options
Context Copy link
I remember Americans being appalled by Chinese drivers who hit a pedestrian, and then made sure run the victim over until they died. It seems Americans were throwing stones, while residing in glass. But it is even worse: the Chinamen are allegedly incentivised to escalate from causing cripplement to murder, while Americans are according to @Rov_Scam, incentivised to escalate from defamation to murder. To me, the beneficial to perpetrator escalation in China is smaller than in the US.
No , there's no incentive. In the auto accident case, running over the person again turns ordinary negligence into an intentional tort which means insurance won't cover any damages and the verdict won't be dischargeable in bankruptcy. In the defamation case, you're talking about the unintended actions of a third party, unless you openly advocate for assassination, in which case defamation doesn't apply. This is all without even mentioning the associated criminal charges.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link