Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion • Hacker News Board

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#191

Post by logicchains » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:37 PM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #136

wakawaka28 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> mere defamation I think what Alex Jones did is more than mere defamation. Repeatedly lying about the reality of a school mass shooting, over years, in such a way that he caused threats to be made against the families of victims? Incitement to credible threats of violence, and especially continuing to do so even after you're aware that's what your listeners are doing, deserves severe consequences.

>Incitement to credible threats of violence

Incitement means means explicitly encouraging. Just because someone people made threats of violence to the families because they believed what Alex Jones said about the shootings, doesn't mean that saying "The shootings were faked" is incitement. If Jones had explicitly said "the families deserve to suffer violent consequences for helping fake the shootings", that would be incitement.

That's why he wasn't convicted of incitement, he was convicted of defamation.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#192

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:38 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #6

This is probably the correct decision. Alex Jones's vitamin company offered 2x more cash, and in the case of a bankruptcy, cash completely trumps any notion of "giving up debt." Especially when the debt being settled is astronomically large and you are giving up a very small portion of it ($7 million out of $1.5 billion). The other creditors are far better off getting more cash, and those $7 million of claims are wor…

How is it the correct decision that Alex Jones has a judgment against him for more money than he claims to have, but also Alex Jones has enough money to enter a bid to satisfy the judgement? It’s a farce.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#193

Post by micromacrofoot » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

jfoster wrote: post #24

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk filed saying that he owns the X accounts and they aren't allowed to be sold according to the TOS. The X accounts were removed from the pending sale.

I haven't seen the filing, but I presume you mean that X filed saying that they own the accounts, right? I don't get why people conflate Elon Musk with the companies that he runs. I imagine he has controlling stakes in all of them, but for the most part he's probably not even a majority shareholder in most of the companies he's running.

musk is the majority shareholder at X and posts obsessively

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#194

Post by sophacles » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #174

jmward01 wrote: post #42

It is clear that Jones and his relatives have moved money and assets around in order to shield them from the verdict. Now, money that should have been already given to the victims is being used to steal back the megaphone that caused harmed in the first place. The end effect will probably be even more subscribers and money for Jones which he will use with even less restraint since he knows there are no consequences.…

>money for Jones which he will use with even less restraint since he knows there are no consequences He was fined over a billion dollars, in what world is losing a billion dollars no consequences?

He wasn't fined. He had a judgement for damages against him. They are different things with a similar outcome (he's out a billion dollars) - accuracy is important.

Also - until he actually pays any of that billion dollars, there have been no consequences.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#195

Post by JamesSwift » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #164

latexr wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is dangerously close to making the penalty the loss of his first amendment rights. It’s fascinating (and worrying) how the people who cry the loudest about the first amendment are the ones who least understand it. The right to free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything without consequences. If you’re a deliberate liar who provably lies to profit and harm others, you can and should be punished. I’m…

>If you’re a deliberate liar who provably lies to profit and harm others, you can and should be punished. The first amendment absolutely gives you the right to lie, and the right to profit from that lying if you're not explicitly committing fraud or defaming anyone. You may disagree with it, but that's what the law is.

Well I hate to break it to you but profiting by lying is the definition of fraud. In general if someone is impacted by your actions you are open to legal ramifications.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#196

Post by micromacrofoot » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

delichon wrote: post #82

NekkoDroid wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk filed saying that he owns the X accounts This would then also imply that any post containing illegal stuff is also his problem, wouldn't it?

Section 230 of Title 47 says no.

he's arguably waving that by claiming he, and not the poster, owns the content

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#197

Post by braincat31415 » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

pineaux wrote: post #177

braincat31415 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is a lie. Hiding assets is trivially easy. You just shouldn't hide them by literally hiding them or not telling about them. Selling the assets for almost free to a different organisation just before you go get your bankrupty is the way to go.

If it is legal and done in plain sight, then it is not "hiding" by definition. If it were illegal, the court and the lawyers representing parents would have done something about the fact of the sale.

Hide: "put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others."

The fact is that most of complainers here would be laughed out of the bancruptcy court, yourself included.

Selling assets for nothing before bancruptcy is legal, but will almost certainly be scrutinized by the court. The court has a broad power to collect the proceeds, sue the purchaser for the difference from the market value, and take additional steps to recover assets.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#198

Post by nilamo » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:40 PM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #166

latexr wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is dangerously close to making the penalty the loss of his first amendment rights. It’s fascinating (and worrying) how the people who cry the loudest about the first amendment are the ones who least understand it. The right to free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything without consequences. If you’re a deliberate liar who provably lies to profit and harm others, you can and should be punished. I’m…

[flagged]

And the death threats those people have been living with for decades because of Jones? That's just acceptable and normal to you?

The amount of whataboutism and history rewriting going on in these comments is impressive

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#199

Post by kiba » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:40 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #164

latexr wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is dangerously close to making the penalty the loss of his first amendment rights. It’s fascinating (and worrying) how the people who cry the loudest about the first amendment are the ones who least understand it. The right to free speech doesn’t mean you can say literally anything without consequences. If you’re a deliberate liar who provably lies to profit and harm others, you can and should be punished. I’m…

>If you’re a deliberate liar who provably lies to profit and harm others, you can and should be punished. The first amendment absolutely gives you the right to lie, and the right to profit from that lying if you're not explicitly committing fraud or defaming anyone. You may disagree with it, but that's what the law is.

Defamation is basically lying about someone to damage their reputation. So I don't think that the first amendment gives you the right to lie?

Also, doctors and lawyers are subjected to discipline by their respective guild. So even if it's your right to say bullshit, you might lose your job and license.

Arguably, there's no to little consequence of being a nobody and lying about something like autism and vaccine. It's probably isn't worth the effort to sue folks. That said, misinformation is clearly harmful and we shouldn't let people lie unchecked.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#200

Post by Andrex » Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 1:40 PM UTC

hbn wrote: post #188

Jones seems like a nut, but the way he's being taken to the cleaners and sued for comical amounts of money are just absurd. I'm not being hyperbolic saying people would be less mad at him if he had done the shooting himself. And it's especially rich in a time where the most popular podcast genre is women commenting on brutal murder cases as they're fresh and being investigated, and throwing out their pet theories abo…

As a CT native, you'll never coax an ounce of sympathy for Jones from me. He made his bed, doubled down, and faced justice. The system worked at least one time.