641–650 of 787 posts
Bad reporting. This is symbolic only. The judgment is unsecured, uncollectable and unlike even a $500 student loan debt, dischargeable in bankruptcy. Unlikely that the judgment creditors will ever see a dime--and someone has to pay for collection efforts on an hourly basis. Because that's how the US justice system™ works.
> Alex Jones to pay $965M to Sandy Hook victims There is absolutely no way this is going to happen. The BBC are delusional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a BILLION. It's a BILLION divided by fifteen plaintiffs, which brings the per-plaintiff number to a high-but-precedented number. The total number is nosebleed-high because Jones managed to be culpable for one of the most egregious defamation cases in 50 years against more than a dozen people simultaneously. Also, because he boycotted the trial and lost it by default .
You say it's precedented, can you cite the precedence? The guy is/was a conspiracy blogger, that's it. You would think he destroyed the housing market or droned thousands of innocent children with that sort of fine. Which is what makes it so absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if he made 1.2 Billion off of his grift that attacked actual people? He isn’t going to jail (which seems like it should be in play to me). He’s just not able to keep any of his ill gotten gains. It’s really hard to feel sympathetic here.
We don't need to ask "what if" because we know he made nothing remotely close to a billion. So now what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You claimed my opinion was adjacent to his. I would not 'rather try controversies with violence than in court' but nor am I completely opposed to people mutually agreeing to settle them directly (with formalities) rather than submitting them to a third party. It seems like you dislike this idea, and are just associating with Jones who you also dislike. I don't see how you get from his conspiracy worldview to my opini…
I do in fact oppose the idea of settling controversies with violence.
What does this opinion of mine have to do with Alex Jones? If you're suggesting that all unusual ideas are somehow adjacent to each other, I don't think much of your categorical skills.
This is great news, but we should temper our expectations: It's likely that Jones will appeal and keep this tied up for years before he has to pay anything. Even if he is eventually obligated to pay some amount, it is unlikely to be what the jury just decided. And even if it is what the jury just decided, Jones' company is already "bankrupt" (yet still on the air) and he will almost certainly avoid liability through…
This is terrible news for free speech. But maybe great news for the unvaccinated who will be able to go after all the people that spread lies about them, and ostracize them from society for two years.
> Alex Jones to pay $965M to Sandy Hook victims There is absolutely no way this is going to happen. The BBC are delusional.
You understand that they're reporting the news and not predicting the future right?
No they’ve done the opposite of that here - saying he will pay is predicting the future (badly). Saying he’s been told to pay would have been reporting the news.
(The headline has been changed if you weren’t aware, so they must agree it was wrong.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do in fact oppose the idea of settling controversies with violence.
That's fine, but it's not responsive to the question I asked you. What does this opinion of mine have to do with Alex Jones? If you're suggesting that all unusual ideas are somehow adjacent to each other, I don't think much of your categorical skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
It is incredibly hard in the US legal system to make a defamation claim stick. Relative to other nations (in particular the UK, which the US shaped some of its law in direct reaction to around 1776), there are several defenses to defamation. The fact that in spite of all those assume-no-malice protections for a defendant this lawsuit still found him guilty says a lot about this case specifically, and very little abou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does one possibly cause $64 million in straight damages per plaintiff? This isn't even the punitive yet. You could take everything I own and prevent me from ever earning another dollar and it wouldn't be $64 million dollars.
> How does one possibly cause $64 million in straight damages per plaintiff? This isn't even the punitive yet. I think people in this thread are massively underestimating the value of a lifetime of labor. This number is perfectly compensatory for eg a married couple that are both MDs, biglaw lawyers, FAANG engineers, finance professionals, or any number of other well-paying white collar jobs. Being threatened the way…