Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#271

Post by preciousoo »

impossiblefork wrote: post #249

I really don't understand how a judgement this large can be reasonable in a case where nobody has had his house burned down. A billion dollars is ten billion crowns, that's 10 000 million crowns, or around 5 000 apartments. I don't understand how 5 000 apartments can be a judgement handed out to an individual over something he says. It doesn't really matter what he says, when it's this kind of huge amounts. One can't…

How about in a case where libel was relentlessly thrown at families over the course of years, on one of the internets largest and most engaged audiences, leading to harassment, threats, and assault? What should the judgment be for that?

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#272

Post by sophacles »

logicchains wrote: post #191
ethbr1 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Because accuracy is important when discussing legal terms - he wasn't convicted. Defamation is a civil offense, and not a crime. He lost a lawsuit, he did not become a convict.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#275

Post by d357r0y3r »

impossiblefork wrote: post #249

I really don't understand how a judgement this large can be reasonable in a case where nobody has had his house burned down. A billion dollars is ten billion crowns, that's 10 000 million crowns, or around 5 000 apartments. I don't understand how 5 000 apartments can be a judgement handed out to an individual over something he says. It doesn't really matter what he says, when it's this kind of huge amounts. One can't…

Same reason Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison for conspiracy charges and CCE. Unusually harsh for those convictions and a first time offender. The point is, as cliche as it sounds, to send a message.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#276

Post by impossiblefork »

enraged_camel wrote: post #267
PessimalDecimal wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

As has been noted in other threads on this page: free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequence. It specifically does NOT mean you cannot get sued for saying something that demonstrably causes immense harm to someone.

But a billion dollars. The order of magnitude isn't 'immense stress to an individual', it's on the order of burning down tens or hundreds of houses.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#277

Post by arp242 »

PessimalDecimal wrote: post #260
impossiblefork wrote: post #249

I really don't understand how a judgement this large can be reasonable in a case where nobody has had his house burned down. A billion dollars is ten billion crowns, that's 10 000 million crowns, or around 5 000 apartments. I don't understand how 5 000 apartments can be a judgement handed out to an individual over something he says. It doesn't really matter what he says, when it's this kind of huge amounts. One can't…

[flagged]

By his own admission, Jones spent years spreading malicious lies about these people. Some people have had to go in to hiding because his unhinged followers started tracking these people down.

As soon as you say "I think more gun control might be a good thing to prevent children from being murdered" you get threatened, bullied, and harassed by a lunatic unhinged fringe stoked up by dirty malicious lies. Is this free speech? Of course not.

He has worked for years to shut people up by creating a hostile anger-filled environment where any normal person is afraid to go against him. Alex Jones hates free speech.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#278

Post by adolph »

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.…

> The end effect will probably be even more subscribers and money for Jones

That seems a very foreseeable outcome.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#279

Post by d357r0y3r »

russdill wrote: post #263
PessimalDecimal wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Defamation is free speech now?

It's not, as defamation should have legal consequences. A one billion dollar payout verdict is just orders of magnitude off in terms of proportionality.

Unfortunately, Alex Jones the person and the nature of Sandy Hook means that most people won't be able to look at this situation with any sort of sanity. The verdict could have been 100 trillion and people would have said it was deserved.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#280

Post by thatcat »

jeltz wrote: post #215
thatcat wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media is routinely used for psyops to bully people into certain policies for profit using known lies with no accountability, either all media companies should be held accountable for this or none should.

I am totally fine with holding all media accountable.

If the Judaical system enforces content regulation selectively, that is objectively worse than pure free speech since it encourages propaganda AND suppresses dissent of that propaganda. Also no one cares what you're ok with, go report some facebook posts if you want to feel like an idea authority.
Post reply on HN