Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 787 posts

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#481

Post by tainfowars0320 »

helf wrote: post #449
unknownaccount wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what the erosion of personal responsibility and accountability looks like. Alex Jones isnt responsible if stupid impressionable people watch his show and do stupid things. That is absurd and absolutely chilling in regards to free speech. Perhaps it even sets a new precedent that everyone who posts a comment/video/podcast online is now responsible for any illegal actions that any of their viewer commit.

Oh here we go… rolls eyes This is not “chilling to free speech”. Spewing hatred and demonstrably false utter bullshit and stirring up people knowingly is what he has and continues to do. Just like any number of other sociopathic fuckwits out there and through the ages. “Personal responsibility and accountability “ is exacty what he’s being held accountable for because /his/ actions, /his/ drivel, /his/ psychotic vitr…

No post body was provided.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#482

Post by warbeforepeace »

darth_avocado wrote: post #249
saltminer wrote: post #23

As someone who's been closely following the Infowars/Free Speech Systems trials (watched all the depos, trial footage, etc.), all I can say is that I'm glad these families are finally getting justice. Even though I'm sure it'll be tied up in appeals for awhile (and reduced on appeal), hopefully it'll prevent future harassment campaigns against families when tragedies occur. And before anyone says "but why wasn't Jone…

First amendment isn’t under attack. Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. Ge attacked people, they responded back. Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander.

Alex has even recently sued someone for defamation over the child porn allegations that were made against him.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#483

Post by acchow »

rglover wrote: post #387
mdp2021 wrote: post #323

Can somebody explain the statement from the lawyer, as reported by Axios: > «We disagree with the basis of the default, we disagree with the court’s evidentiary rulings. In more than 200 trials in the course of my career I have never seen a trial like this», Pattis added. «Today is a very, very dark day for freedom of speech» given that another bullet states > claimed the shooting was a "false flag" operation planned…

It's a statement of opinion which perfectly fits under the guise of free speech. I can claim that McDonald's hamburgers are made of cat meat to lower prices and it's the exact same thing. It's only because it's political (and Jones is a perennial example to be paraded about as the standard for "evil far-right conservative extremist" thought) that it gets contorted into what it has. This will predictably bite people i…

> I can claim that McDonald's hamburgers are made of cat meat to lower prices

Without evidence? Wouldn't this just be slander?

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#484

Post by kaba0 »

unknownaccount wrote: post #435
mostafas wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Hitler personally kill any Jews? Did Putin personally kill any Ukrainians? Sorry to invoke Godwin's law so early.

No but this still establishes a scary new precedent; that any podcaster/videomaker is now legally responsible for any illegal actions that their viewers commit on their own accord. I can imagine how this will result in people being scared to criticize any leader or person in power because their comment/video might inspire some crazy person to harass them for which they will be found legally responsible.

It’s like there is this wall between US people’s understanding of free speech and a usual EU residents’. The same way Holocaust denial should be punishable, there are sane rules that must be abided, otherwise only chaos ensues. It won’t take you down an Orwellian dystopia any time soon, if anything, allowing these criminals selling an alternative reality will.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#485

Post by abliefern »

unknownaccount wrote: post #464
helf wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh here we go… rolls eyes This is not “chilling to free speech”. Spewing hatred and demonstrably false utter bullshit and stirring up people knowingly is what he has and continues to do. Just like any number of other sociopathic fuckwits out there and through the ages. “Personal responsibility and accountability “ is exacty what he’s being held accountable for because /his/ actions, /his/ drivel, /his/ psychotic vitr…

Alex Jones wasnt the mastermind who created this conspiracy theory. The crisis actors conspiracy theory was already popular on the internet a couple days after the incident, months to years before Alex Jones covered it. There were numerous people speculating at the time about some strange discrepencies in the official narrative and footage which was able to convince some otherwise very reasonable people that there wa…

Five minutes of research shows that this isn't true and that he knew.

I'm not sure anyone is seriously attributing the conspiracy theory to him, they are attributing to him that he spread it, publicly attacking the families while making money doing so.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#486

Post by pdonis »

ncallaway wrote: post #459
pdonis wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Defamation is inherently inciteful. That might be your personal opinion, but it's not the law. If nutjob A makes a defamatory statement about you, but doesn't tell anyone to do anything, and then nutjob B harasses you after hearing what nutjob A said, nutjob B is the one who is legally responsible for the harassment. Nutjob A is responsible for the defamation, but not for what other nutjobs might decide to do. Now…

> If nutjob A makes a defamatory statement about you, but doesn't tell anyone to do anything, and then nutjob B harasses you after hearing what nutjob A said, nutjob B is the one who is legally responsible for the harassment. Nutjob A is responsible for the defamation, but not for what other nutjobs might decide to do. Courts and jurors are completely fine with finding that the behavior of nutjob B (and C and D and E…

> Courts and jurors are completely fine with finding that the behavior of nutjob B (and C and D and E and F) that are predictable from the defamation are part of the damages associated with the defamation.

Do you have any actual cases where that was the ruling?

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#487

Post by tptacek »

rglover wrote: post #443
tptacek wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If you built a multimillion-dollar media enterprise and used it to state that you had actual knowledge that McDonalds used cat meat in their Quarter Pounders, McDonalds would likely end up owning your media enterprise, and might also erect a PlayPlace(tm) on the ground your house stood on. We just saw this happen to Oberlin a few weeks ago: you can do tens of millions of dollars of damage by materially misstating…

Right, but did he make a specific claim that he had specific, direct knowledge of Sandy Hook being a hoax (e.g., his usual trope of "we've got documents")? A parent (individual) isn't a corporation with profits to be damaged. I don't doubt a claim of emotional distress, but it's a stretch to say every single parent's character was defamed. As far as I saw from trial clips, one nutjob lady claimed Info Wars radicalize…

Yes, that was well established --- as it has to be in any defamation case, lest the case be dismissed. Moreover, it doesn't much matter, because he deliberately defaulted the trial itself, so the only question for the jury was damages. If you haven't followed this case at all, it's pretty easy to quickly Google the background, and you'll immediately fine that "defamation in this case doesn't make much sense" is probably not a coherent thing to say about the Jones case.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#488

Post by Cyberdog »

shagie wrote: post #446
Cyberdog wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's true, I'd love to see how exactly they calculated that.

The breakdown of the damages - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/us/politics/alex-jones-da...

> Defamation/slander damages, past and future: $60 million

That's not much of a breakdown, and if anything it seems to go against the idea that these dollar amounts aren't punitive. Are we supposed to assume that that particular plaintiff would have been $60 million richer if Jones hadn't had said what he said? Ridiculous.

The emotional distress damages are more subjective, of course, but I still don't see the amounts as any less punitive at this point.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#489

Post by Kesseki »

pen2l wrote: post #364
tptacek wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it seems like he has personal assets in the high tens of millions of dollars, and that Free Speech Systems was probably worth into the 9 figures. If the verdict stands, all of that will get wiped out, and the question remaining will be whether the damages, which stem from an intentional tort, will be dischargeable when Jones is forced into bankruptcy non-ironically, rather than using it as a ploy. Still a lot of…

This always confused me, if someone is wiped out in this way how are they able to survive in the aftermath? Isn't this effectively sentencing them to homelessness forever, or is there a floor value in these wins that's always respected which accounts for some minimal cost amount of food+rent? And doesn't the responsibility to pay up remain for money made after the bankruptcy event? Or does declaring bankruptcy ensure…

Yes, there is usually a floor value. Most states enumerate some types and amounts of property, and some amounts of income, that are exempt from civil judgment collection. It's the same thing for bankruptcy: there are exemptions that allow you to keep a certain amount.

A bankruptcy discharge does usually ensure a clean slate for new ventures. However, some types of debt are "nondischargeable" and can survive a bankruptcy. That includes "intentional torts" like these instances of defamation. So, it's likely that these plaintiffs/creditors will be able to go after his new ventures.

Re: Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

#490

Post by tainfowars0320 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #359
SoftTalker wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bankruptcy notwithstanding, he almost certainly does not have $1B. He's a celebrity figure of sorts, but pretty fringe. It's a symbolic victory. He'll have to liquidate the bulk of whatever assets he may have, and the plaintiffs will get a few dollars when it's all said and done.

Yeah I think the object here is not to enrich the families but to make the costs actually matter instead of being a line item on his annual financials.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN