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

751–760 of 787 posts

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

#751

Post by alexnewman »

thwayunion wrote: post #749
alexnewman wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is extremely misleading. Legacy media sells ads. Infowars sells products.

> This is extremely misleading LOL what? > Legacy media sells ads. Legacy media also typically has broadcasting equipment, large headcount, spectrum allocation, and so on. > Infowars sells products. I'm sure those supplements have extensive R&D and product development expenses /s

Yes you are implying they have the same margins and business model. They don’t. Surely alex Jones has broadcasting equipment.

I didn’t defend alex Jones and i won’t. He’s a bad guy. But I care about accuracy. The idea that he’s rich is unfounded and silly

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

#752

Post by Pxtl »

pixl97 wrote: post #663
pGuitar wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple and other large businesses get fined nowhere near what they have in assets.... no matter how bad their actions are. One billion is just crazy in this case...

Because Apple is not inflammatory in the court. You cannot go into a court and behave poorly, especially in the a case covering murdered children and expect a jury not to punish you to the full extent of their capabilities.

The ALAB podcast has a fun theory on the subject that while ostensibly your success in court is a matter of law and procedure, but the underlying test you've got to pass is "who's the asshole here?". Because the judge is going to decide which party is the asshole at some point, and part of the job of lawyers is to make sure it's not them and their clients.

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

#753

Post by tb_technical »

thwayunion wrote: post #750
tb_technical wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perdue was fined 634.5 million USD, actually.

A quick Google search confirms the ~$6B number, and as a lower bound. When the facts are this easy to find and you repeat wildly false information, you're not simply mistaken, you are intentionally lying. Why do you feel the need to lie about this? Why are you so desperate to deny an obvious truth? Good men don't lie. "Attorney General John M. Formella today announced a national settlement with Purdue Pharma and its…

Actually, I didn't know about the recent case in 2020. I thought this all happened like ten years ago. Thanks for letting me know.

Don't appreciate being called a liar, but that's the internet for ya.

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

#754

Post by pdonis »

ncallaway wrote: post #746
pdonis wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's look at the 37.100 for Actual Damages from the VA pattern jury instructions* "The probable effect on those who heard the statement" is ambiguous. Does it mean the effect on their opinion of the plaintiff? Or does it mean the effect on their actions? Legally, I believe it's the first. The defendant can be held responsible for the probable effects of their defamatory false statements as far as inducing negative…

> Legally, I believe it's the first. They're jury instructions. There isn't further legal analysis. These words mean precisely what a jury of your peers interpret them to mean. That's it. You don't get to make a legal quibble over a juror's reasonable interpretation of the instructions. If there's ambiguity, it's up to the jury to resolve at that point (and often jury instructions deliberately have some ambiguity to…

> These words mean precisely what a jury of your peers interpret them to mean.

And how do we find out what that is? We find out by looking at what happened in actual cases.

In the Gibson case that you cited, I saw nothing that indicated that the jury awarded damages based on harassment by unrelated third parties. There is a mention of Grandpa Gibson "breaking his back", but there is nothing to indicate that the jury awarded any damages based on, for example, medical or other costs associated with that back injury. According to your position, damages for that should have been included. On mine, they shouldn't (the Gibsons would have to recover such damages from whoever was pounding on their apartment door in the middle of the night). So this instance supports my position, not yours.

Similarly, in the Alex Jones cases, I see no indication that the juries awarded any damages based on harassment by unrelated third parties. Which, again, is consistent with the position I have been arguing.

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

#755

Post by ncallaway »

pdonis wrote: post #754
ncallaway wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Legally, I believe it's the first. They're jury instructions. There isn't further legal analysis. These words mean precisely what a jury of your peers interpret them to mean. That's it. You don't get to make a legal quibble over a juror's reasonable interpretation of the instructions. If there's ambiguity, it's up to the jury to resolve at that point (and often jury instructions deliberately have some ambiguity to…

> These words mean precisely what a jury of your peers interpret them to mean. And how do we find out what that is? We find out by looking at what happened in actual cases. In the Gibson case that you cited, I saw nothing that indicated that the jury awarded damages based on harassment by unrelated third parties. There is a mention of Grandpa Gibson "breaking his back", but there is nothing to indicate that the jury…

> there is nothing to indicate that the jury awarded any damages based on, for example, medical or other costs associated with that back injury

"I don't see something" is not evidence that it doesn't exist.

> So this instance supports my position, not yours.

Does it? You haven't cited anything beyond "I haven't seen it". If you want to claim it supports your position, show your work.

Show the breakdown of the $11M in damages, and show that it excludes property damages, and the medical damages.

"I see no indication that..."

Again, I'm not going to carry this conversation forward unless you actually start citing sources, and pointing to the breakdown of damages if you claim it supports your position.

For all you've demonstrated, "I've seen no indication" may only be evidence that you haven’t looked.

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

#756

Post by Kye »

bakugo wrote: post #610
donatj wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question - could Jones sue Subodh Chandra for defamation given that his life was just valued at at least a billion dollars by a jury?

He could try, but he'd lose because he's on the wrong side of the political spectrum.

What side do you imagine he's on? I haven't seen a poll, but I haven't heard any of the same nonsense out of Republicans. Their main point of difference with Democrats on the issue seems to be how to respond to the real thing that everyone agrees happened.

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

#757

Post by mcphage »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #669
polotics wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparable damage? Can you imagine your young daughter one days goes to school, never comes back because she bled to death in a corridor there, and then for years you get attacked by strangers claiming you made it all up and are a fake? One thing I really don't understand about the US of A is, while it is abominously violent, still, a pork like Alex Jones hasn't been physically attacked by anyone. It's like there's a…

> Can you imagine your young daughter one days goes to school, never comes back because she bled to death in a corridor there, and then for years you get attacked by strangers claiming you made it all up and are a fake? Sure, we have a scenario in three parts: 1. Your daughter goes to school. 2. She bleeds to death in a corridor. 3. You get attacked by strangers claiming you are a phony. Don't you think the damage oc…

> Don't you think the damage occurs in step 2? What did Alex Jones have to do with that?

Damage occurred in both steps 2 & 3, but as you point out, Alex Jones had nothing to do with step 2, so this case is about step 3.

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

#758

Post by yucky »

thwayunion wrote: post #744
yucky wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you've defined what makes the judgement absurd. And because it's multiplicative and due solely to "mean words said on blog", then that leaves sane people to see how ridiculous the whole thing is. Imagine for a minute if Trump decided to sue everyone who called him a Russian agent on TV or in writing. The award would be in the trillions.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don't think this is a place for ad hominem attacks. I also don't feel like defending Alex Jones, so at this point we've probably taken this as far as we can.

Unless someone else comes through with a different example of what is effectively a billion dollar fine given to a blogger. I'll keep an eye out but I won't hold my breath.

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

#759

Post by thaumasiotes »

mcphage wrote: post #757
thaumasiotes wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you imagine your young daughter one days goes to school, never comes back because she bled to death in a corridor there, and then for years you get attacked by strangers claiming you made it all up and are a fake? Sure, we have a scenario in three parts: 1. Your daughter goes to school. 2. She bleeds to death in a corridor. 3. You get attacked by strangers claiming you are a phony. Don't you think the damage oc…

> Don't you think the damage occurs in step 2? What did Alex Jones have to do with that? Damage occurred in both steps 2 & 3, but as you point out, Alex Jones had nothing to do with step 2, so this case is about step 3.

That's not a conclusion you can reach by reading this comment thread. People are falling over themselves to point out that these families lost their children. Why?

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

#760

Post by likpok »

thwayunion wrote: post #711
dukeofdoom wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make the comparison because the judge denied Alex a jury trial, based on him not turning over evidence, and not him missing court dates. Some of the evidence he failed to turn over is financial data. The argument made was that the lack of this evidence would prejudice the jury from finding Alex guilty. The judge sided with the prosecution on this so she defaulted him. Specifically the prosecution was making the arg…

You. Cannot. Ignore. Discovery. Seriously. Cannot. In a criminal case, this is equivalent to standing in your doorway and physically blocking the police from executing a lawful warrant. Except, in that case, the police have recourse -- they can push you aside and execute a search. That isn't possible in civil cases; the only power a court has to compel cooperation with discovery is threatening a default judgement. Th…

> You lose, you piss off the judge, and any jury will most likely assume you have something to hide that is even worse than a guilty verdict.

Also note that in a civil trial you do not have a right against self-incrimination. You can refuse to testify but your opponent can use your lack of testimony against you.

Post reply on HN