|
Chemda is correct to have reservations on the Kanye lawsuit for saying something ignorant.
This is different than Alex Jones. Primarily, in Alex Jones's case he knew he was lying and he intentionally continued to do it knowing it would cause harm to the families he was lying about. Kanye has not as of yet made public that he knows that he is lying and knows that he causing the family harm by his intentionally false statements.
Second, the lie that Alex Jones was primarily saying was a statement about the living family taking dishonest actions which is a slander of their character. Kanye is asserting a factual difference in cause of death. If Kanye was claiming that GF's family faked the cause of death or was lying about the cause of death for some reason for their own ends this would then be a character slander that could be litigated legally. Key word there was legally, I'm sure in this environment he would be prosecuted and probably even found guilty outside the law as law seems to be more and more controlled by social sentiment (good example is Alex Jones's attorney turning over excess evidence outside of discovery requests and then when asked if he wished to disclose the extra evidence he chose to not respond - this is a bar violation and the case should have been dismissed as a mistrial and his license revoked but it wasn't because that is what social sentiment wanted).
Third, the physical facts of the cases are very different. In Alex Jones's case ALL physical evidence aligned with the fact that not only was Jones wrong but he knew he was lying and knew pushing a known wrong statement was causing economic harm to the families. In Kanye's case the physical evidence is much more complicated and there is no physical evidence (video taped saying, text messages, emails, etc.) showing Kanye knows what he is saying is wrong AND that he knows saying it is wrong AND is causing harm to others.
IF this met the standard for litigation the precedent would follow that anyone who mis-spoke, mis-remembered, mis-understood, said anything stupid etc. would be liable for slander. It just doesn't meet the basic minimum threshold.
|