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

731–740 of 787 posts

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

#731

Post by hunterb123 »

taylodl wrote: post #720
hunterb123 wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So since OJ got off you assume everyone acquitted may still be guilty? That's a great system you got there.

You might be forgetting OJ was found guilty in Civil Court. How can you be guilty in Civil Court and not guilty in Criminal Court? Easy. Two different criteria for guilt. In Criminal Court it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. In Civil Court it must be shown that it's more likely than not that you committed the crime. In the case of OJ what this means is it's more likely than not that…

I'm aware of the civil trial, but it was even clear in the criminal trial he murdered his wife.

Between the blood on everything he owned, the car chase, the domestic abuse calls etc.

He was acquitted by the jury due to racial tensions. Certainly not something to apply to any other case, it was a special exception of injustice.

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

#732

Post by tptacek »

pen2l wrote: post #698
tptacek wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's better with Barro than when he's trying to make Legal Radiolab. :)

Curious: when are you guys listening to these podcasts? While driving? While out for a run or something? Certainly not when on the computer right - cause god knows I couldn’t do that kind of multitasking. I’d love to go through the archive of past Ken White podcasts but I don’t know how to make the time for it. Are you listening to them at 2x speed?

I have a 30 minute one-way commute to the office.

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

#733

Post by hunterb123 »

schwartzworld wrote: post #723
hunterb123 wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So since OJ got off you assume everyone acquitted may still be guilty? That's a great system you got there.

> everyone acquitted may still be guilty? The standard for acquitting is reasonable doubt. You're presumed innocent until proven guilty, so in theory you aren't necessarily required to prove your innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt. While it may work differently in practice at times, that idea IS actually a great one. So yes, it may still be possible that someone who is acquitted is in fact guilty, but the prosecuti…

> While it may work differently in practice at times, that idea IS actually a great one.

Exactly. That's my point. Don't assume everyone who was acquitted is guilty because of the few exceptions of injustice such as OJ.

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

#734

Post by kazinator »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #297
darth_avocado wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander. But a $965 million dollar judgment for libel or slander would have to be justified by comparable damages. That isn't the case here.

One issue is that the defendant not only inflicted damages, but ran a business which profited from the same activity.

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

#735

Post by pixl97 »

betwixthewires wrote: post #692
pixl97 wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because of your ignorance of the courtroom process with a jury... When those large companies go in front of a jury they are respectful, they don't act like assholes to the jurors, they defend their positions well, they avoid making the jurors hate them. Jones did none of the above. He did, seemingly, everything possible to bias the jury against him. This is the pinnacle of arrogance and stupidity.

OK, sure, he's a fuckhead. He's a dumbass, he's a clown, he's not a smart man. He is an asshole. But a billion dollars. A billion dollar judgment. You don't think they're rubbing his face in it a little? Teaching us all a lesson about what happens?

Rule number one is "Do not be a fuckhead in court". Rule number two is "Don't be a fuckhead about children"

It is the juries duty to teach you a lesson when you pull crap like this within the confines the law allows. If you're going into a courtroom with nearly unlimited liability you really need to comprehend that your behavior has ramifications. In addition this punishment is not just for his past acts but the fact the accused shows no remorse about their behavior and WILL continue to behave in the same manner in the future.

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

#737

Post by thwayunion »

jpttsn wrote: post #469

Curious: What kind of tax would I pay in the US if I became a multimillionaire off compensation for my damaged reputation? Also, could I make a deduction for my damaged reputation based on this sort of calculation/figure?

The advice I received was as follows: for tax planning and personal budgeting purposes, start from the assumption that the entire settlement/award will be taxed as income. When you receive the check, set aside city+state+fed taxes at your highest tax bracket. If the award is big enough to justify it, talk with an expert since portions may not be taxable either federally or in some states. If the amount is too small to justify paying an accountant (mine was), probably better to simply treat it as income on your taxes.

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

#738

Post by ncallaway »

pdonis wrote: post #729
ncallaway wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's basically the very core of the typical harms that arise from defamation. Almost always the economic harms that arise from defamation are the result of third parties responding to the defamatory content. If you couldn't incorporate the actions of third parties into the calculation of economic harm, then there would almost never be economic harm from defamation. As for specific court cases, take a look at…

> it's basically the very core of the typical harms that arise from defamation I understand that this is the opinion of you and others. That doesn't make it the law. > take a look at Gibson Bros., Inc v. Oberlin College In that case, there was evidence of communications by college officials saying things like "I hope we rain fire and brimstone down on that store". Also, the college has a responsibility for the behavi…

> I understand that this is the opinion of you and others. That doesn't make it the law.

It's not really a question of law. It's more a question of fact ("were these claimed economic harms caused by the statement"), which means its a question for the jury. Which means it's the opinion of the jury that matters.

As far as "the law" on this topic, typically the most relevant thing will be the jury instructions. These will vary from state to state, but let's take a look at Virginia's since those were the first I found online.

I'll highlight again my claim that we're evaluating:

"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."

Let's look at the 37.100 for Actual Damages from the VA pattern jury instructions: https://www.vacourts.gov/courts/circuit/resources/model_jury...

> ...in determining the amount of damages to which he is entitled, you may take into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the statement, the occasion on which it was made and the extent of its publication, the nature and character of the insult, *the probable effect on those who heard the statement*, and its probable and natural effect upon the plaintiff's personal feelings and upon his standing in the community and in business

I've indicated the key section which directly supports my claim. I'll turn it over to you. Can you find a state's pattern jury instructions that *don't* behave the way I suggest? I'm not familiar with all 50 states defamation laws, but I'll be very surprised if you find a single state that doesn't allow the jury to include the predictable actions of third parties based on the defamation as part of the harms of defamation.

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

#739

Post by schwartzworld »

hunterb123 wrote: post #733
schwartzworld wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone acquitted may still be guilty? The standard for acquitting is reasonable doubt. You're presumed innocent until proven guilty, so in theory you aren't necessarily required to prove your innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt. While it may work differently in practice at times, that idea IS actually a great one. So yes, it may still be possible that someone who is acquitted is in fact guilty, but the prosecuti…

> While it may work differently in practice at times, that idea IS actually a great one. Exactly. That's my point. Don't assume everyone who was acquitted is guilty because of the few exceptions of injustice such as OJ.

Nobody said they are. They said they "may be"

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

#740

Post by NickC25 »

shagie wrote: post #730
brigandish wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$815k a day ? Wow. I would’ve never thought that Infowars could make so much money. I’ve seen some others in the thread mention Jones’ millions, are his financials available? I thought he’d lied and obfuscated them in order to go bankrupt.

The Sandy Hook defamation cases have put Alex Jones’s finances under scrutiny. - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/us/alex-jones-finances.ht... > A lawyer for Scarlett Lewis and Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son Jesse Lewis died in the 2012 attack, presented records on Wednesday showing that Infowars made more than $800,000 a day at one point in 2018 (Mr. Jones said the amount stemmed from a particularly lucrative p…

> The $815k/day appears to be the average of a peak reporting period. A more reasonable number is that it was getting $125k/day profit overall and it had one week were it made 6x that amount.

Great point - thanks for the clarification!

As for the total amount of profit, yeah, that's still absurd - $125k a day in profit for a sustained period of time.

I think that's nearly as much as the highest paid soccer player in the world makes in pre-tax salary. Think about that for a moment. A guy who spreads conspiracy theories in one country aimed at a small portion of the population makes more in a day than the highest paid athlete in the world's most popular sport.

Post reply on HN