"It is my understanding that the First Amendment provides no restrictions on what I'm allowed to question publicly or privately."
He literally doesn't have to say anything else.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
Yes, actually you do, because the prosecution explains how defamation falls outside of free speech.
"Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly — typically via the news media — and claiming that it's true. An opinion can't be defamatory. The statement also must have done actual damage to someone's reputation."
The parents suing Jones say his lies about their child's death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones' followers.
Just think about it from a local level. If someone in your neighborhood started spreading rumors that you're a convict/pedo/rapist, and then suddenly you're fired from your job and your public persona is ruined forever, wouldn't you seek justice? That's why defamation laws exist. When lies lead to actual damages, it's not "thinking out loud" anymore.
I feel like you responded to my first few sentences and ignored the rest of my reply, too eager to reply yourself. I'm aware of what constitutes defamation, and I think it should be punishable, I'm merely questioning whether what Jones did rises to that level.
I only responded to the first part because you said this, which is exactly what the trial shows, so there isn't really a need for me to explain anything beyond that. I understand where you are coming from though.