221–230 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cause a lot of damage, you get a lot of punishment.
It's not a punishment, it's a debt. If you steal a sandwich and eat it you'll be fined, that's a punishment and a transaction with the state, and you'll also pay the owner damages, which is not a transaction with the state.
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]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You bring up a fair point. In my mind, Musk has taken so much control over X that it's more of a direct relationship than Tesla or SpaceX would be. For this filing, IIRC It was reported that Musk instructed X to step in on Jone's request for help. That feels different to me than GM shutting down a project. It feels politically motivated by Musk's personal beliefs then a decision being made on the company's behalf for…
X can and has taken any username they want away from a user for any or no reason.
Filing a brief in a bankruptcy auction that “this property is ours, not the debtor’s, and may not be auctioned or also” is an obvious way for them to publicly assert their rights and ownership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cause a lot of damage, you get a lot of punishment.
Actually generally for emotional damage you don't. In the US you're perfectly free to insult someone and hurt their feelings without being liable to pay them damages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 was fined over a billion dollars, in what world is losing a billion dollars no consequences? Parent’s point is that the amount of the fine doesn’t matter if he is able to avoid paying it. It could have been a quadrillion. A fine only matters if you actually have to pay it. On an average-person-level, some municipalities nearby me have decided to not basically not do anything about parking fines. As a result, ther…
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…
Jones continued to inflict harm on families who’d lost children, and profited significantly from it both financially and politically. He defied multiple courts, too, so there was no question of premeditation or incapacity, just repeated decisions to cause harm year after year. That’s the difference: true crime podcasts don’t cause harm on that scale, and few people are going to defy the authority of the legal system…
It makes sense that Jones would lose the case, but the scale of the judgements was eye watering and is difficult to justify. The scale of the compensation is in a different world to the amount of damage done (intentionally, the bulk is punative). That changes the nature of what is going on.
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…
> 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. Right, and how do you obtain that "proof of deliberateness"? Or measure that non-physical harm in a way that doesn't give power to people who just don't like what you're saying (possibly the truth)? Most people in favour o…
If only there were a system of formal rules and a process where evidence is presented by highly trained and experienced experts, presided over by an impartial arbiter, with deliberation, established precedent, a system of appeals, and if only that system had been used here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d agree re bankruptcy but can you discern between your use of damages (which you say is not a punishment) and fines (which you say are a punishment?
One is payed to the state, the other to another person, as in one regulates the relation to the state, the other the relation to another person.
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.…
That's not what this judgement says. It actually says the sale did not generate enough money for the creditors and the process should be run again. I think the Judge maybe naive in thinking that re-running an auction will generate more money (normally it will generate less, as the losing bidders will drop out) but he did not agree with Jones' claims.