Where have they done so in this case? As far as I can tell, the plaintiffs didn't even allege damages from harassment in this case. They alleged damages from emotional distress due to the defamation.
Its distressing because of the harassment it engenders and includes the fear of future harassment, as much as anything else. If you prefer a legal system where the jury is not allowed to weigh such factors and damage awards are determined in accordance with some statutory formula, that's your prerogative. Don't do any business in Connecticut, I guess.
This doesn't answer my question. "Harassment is distressing" might be your opinion, but I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking if you can point me at anything in the plaintiffs' claims or their lawyer's arguments or the court ruling that based any part of the damage award on harassment by people who had nothing to do with Jones but just heard what he said, instead of just on defamation by Jones and his associates and employees.
How about you look up the case and read the complaint for yourself, then you can express your opinion on how it's deficient. I don't know how the jurors parsed the evidence and haven't followed the trial so closely that I want to restate the plaintiffs' arguments.
