We STILL Have to Talk About Alex Jones

I'm writing this blog in response to the CNN.com story "We Have to Talk About Alex Jones," which interviewed several random people (mostly not celebrities) about their opinions on whether Alex Jones's conspiracy theories and rants count as protected free speech, whether people have the right to sue him over what he says, and whether social media services have the right to remove him from their websites.

Some people hit the issues dead on the money, but many -- even some of the people who generally disagree with Alex Jones -- got so protective of the concept of free speech that they missed a few critical points that should be obvious -- or made obvious -- to everyone. So let's talk some basic facts. Not opinions -- my opinions on this are fairly strong -- but just facts for now.

Legally speaking, freedom of speech is not unlimited. The most cited example originated with Jutice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic."

It's commonly understood that Mr. Holmes was using the "fire in a crowded theater" hypothetical

as just one example of a general concept.

Many have argued that, legally/ metaphorically speaking, Alex Jones is indeed shouting "fire"

in a crowded theater every time he spouts one of his conspiracy theories. But let's leave aside

that particular debate just for a moment.

Our legal right to freedom of speech specifically protects us from governmental interference

from freedom of speech. The concept, however, was never meant,

and was never intended to mean, freedom from consequence

when we use or abuse that freedom.

If you say something that offends a privately owned company, like Facebook or Youtube,

that company has every right to distance itself from you. Indeed, that's how the people

who run such organizations practice their free speech.

And if you make statements that are both false

(Jones declaring the Newtown shooting to be a hoax)

and harmful (giving out personal contact information of the Newtown vicitms families

and encouraging his listeners to harrass them) you are subject to libel lawsuits that

cannot be interpreted as an infringement of your legal rights. Alex Jones is intentionally

spreading lies about people who have already suffered tremendously, and encouraging

people to victimize them further -- and then he is declaring himself the victim.

Any declaration that Jones is immune from libel because he honestly believes his accusations

is further misunderstanding of the law. "Honest belief" is an unprovable standard. In Jones's

case, nothing is stopping Jones from lying his head off about what he believes and

doesn't believe,

and nothing is stopping his legal opponents from making assumptions about what's in his

heart of hearts. Only he could possibly know, and even swearing under oath is no guarantee

of honesty.

But that's all fine. That's all moot. Because the unprovable "honest belief" is not the standard.

The standard is determining whether the false and harmful statements

were made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.

Yes, well, what is "adequate"? You could argue that it's a subjective standard. But let's look at the case

under question. The fact that the Newtown incident actually happened, and that real deaths

resulted from it, and that none of the participants were actors or conspirators -- these are all objectively

provable in a number of ways. You can deny it, like some deny the Holocaust. You can disbelieve it,

like some people think the wolrld is flat. But you cannot wilfully ignore the evidence and then claim

adequate research. What's sadly overlooked by far too many political figures these days is that opinion

and fact are two very different things. Jones can have his own opinions. But he cannot have his own facts.

The Newtown massacre either ojectively happened, or it objectively didn't happen.

It happened.

book review: 14 by Peter Clines (in which I review just one book entitled 14, not 14 separate books)

Some books are easier to review than others. Books that entirely or even just partially depend on twists and turns are especially difficult. How do you communicate enough about the book to hook potential readers without giving away so much that you've negatively impacted the book's effectiveness?

So I'll start by observing this: 14 by Peter Clines is one of those books that is so entertaining, you're a little sad when it's over. You wish you could spend more time with the characters.

The novel is fantastic in nature, in both senses of the word. But Clines takes his sweet time getting to the story's fantasy and sci-fi elements. It's "slow-burn sci-fi," in which several chapters go by before the supernatural elements creep on onto the reader. In the meantime, you get to know the characters so well, and find them so believable, that by the time they're fighting supernatural forces, you can almost believe it could all happen.

The main character is Nate Tucker, an everyman who stumbles upon the opportunity to move into an apartment with ridiculously low rent by L.A. standards. So low that, even though he can't afford to turn the opportunity down, Nate understands that there simply has to be a catch.

If this is all starting to sound like a set-up for a "haunted house" story, you're not even close. But yes, Nate is intrigued by not one, but several mysteries that seem to surround his new apartment building. During his amateur investigation, Nate gets to know the neighbors -- enough quirky neighbors to fill not one but several sitcoms, but they're all quirky in believable ways.

I mentioned that there are several mysterious regarding the building. The title comes from one of these mysteries, apartment #14, which has never been rented or even opened, in the memories of any of the building's current residents. But why would any management company let such premium rental space go to waste in the heart of L.A. -- and why be so secretive about the reasons behind it?

As a movie buff, I immediately started imagining how they could make 14 into a movie. They could do it -- several scenes are highly cinematic. But I suspect that any film or TV studio would get impatient with all of time Clines carefully spends to develop the characters. Studio execs would be eager to wow us with the action. That might be fun in a way. But it would also be missing the point. Many of the characters of 14 form what Stephen King would call a "ka-tet," a social group bound by destiny into a connection more powerful than mere friendship. Would producers have time for that? I think back to the disastrous adaptation of The Dark Tower, where King originated the concept and term of ka-tet. The movie, as I recall, completely ignored this central concept of the books. I think back to the oddly overrated adaptation of King's It. I don't recall the book ever explicitly using the term "ka-tet," although it certainly was a central theme of the story, a theme which was glossed over and watered down in the movie. So if a movie came out of 14, knowing me, I'd eagerly watch it -- and knowing movie producers, I'd probably be gravely disappointed in the results.

But this book -- man, what a good read!