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

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#281

Post by stavros »

HPsquared wrote: post #226
LeafItAlone wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Reminds me of that Russian court that recently fined Google $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Funnily enough this was along similar lines to the Alex Jones case but in reverse.

Huh, I wonder why they stopped at 20.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#282

Post by PessimalDecimal »

impossiblefork wrote: post #276
enraged_camel wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right the problem here is the targeted, selective enforcement -- really, overenforcement -- of laws. Nobody would argue that people hit with $100 million judgments for copyright violations while torrenting music actually had copyright on that music. They didn't. But the point of the eye watering judgments was to send a message. Same here.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#283

Post by avs733 »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #31

Wait, so you can be fined 1.5 Billion for reporting on a conspiracy theory? BTW, this is a lot more than pharmaceutical companies pay out for actually killing people. I remember watching the trial and it was the most ridiculous thing every. The defendant (Alex) wasn't allowed to say he's innocent because the judge defaulted him. Yet the prosecution was allowed to bring in all kinds of evidence of his guilt (other tha…

Ignoring the fact that he lost for not participating and for lying throughout the process...which is why we are were we are...its worth reviewing what he actually did.

A really entertaining podcast has actually done a series of episodes on the depositions in the case. If you are curious about the facts heres a list of those episodes:

https://knowledgefight.libsyn.com/size/25/?search=Formulaic+...

Be warned they are...long and detailed.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#284

Post by munk-a »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #51
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.…

[flagged]

Let's not discuss "proper processes" when Jones illegally hid evidence and refused to participate in our legal system to the point of getting a default judgement against him. Everything he was accused of he did - he refused the right to participate in our justice system and accepted full liability for his actions.

On the point of "any award in the billions (much less trillions, as they initially demanded) is exorbitant for mere defamation" this is a pretty clear misunderstanding of our legal system as it is today. Initial claims are a mere formality that do nothing but potentially limit damages - the judgements rendered against Jones were 965M in the Connecticut case and 50M in the Texas case - no other numbers are relevant. Finally, referring to 1.015B as "Billions" feels rather dishonest - the total award is technically above a billion but the families will see nothing near that amount in the final resolution.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#285

Post by impossiblefork »

mdorazio wrote: post #269
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…

Look up "nuclear verdicts". The unreasonably large dollar amount is intentional and not meant to reflect the real value of harm caused.

Yes, but a billion dollars. It's 30x the sale price of Minalyzer, a very cool Swedish firm which was bought by Veracio.

It's a level where, when it is an international case, it makes sense for states to get involved with diplomatic pressure. Surely your legal system must be more reasonable than this, because if it's like this, how can it function?

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#286

Post by JackFr »

a12k wrote: post #230
ajb wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The creditors agreed to and supported the Global Tetrahedron plan to purchase Infowars and settle the bankruptcy. Seems like the judge is overstepping given Delaware law on this matter.

Talk to Elon about Delaware judges overstepping...

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#287

Post by ttyprintk »

jfoster wrote: post #56
Gigachad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because X is purely a platform to do whatever Elon wants. It’s so blatantly obvious that this decision came from Musk even if it was delivered indirectly.

Isn't that how all companies operate? For instance, GM reconsidering Cruise is clearly from Mary Barra, but the decision is overall a GM decision. Saying "Mary Barra is shutting down Cruise" would just seem childish.

Privately held companies, yes. Not all.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#288

Post by pdpi »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #255
toomuchtodo wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will he keep running do overs until he gets the outcome he wants?

From what the internet says, it didn’t go to the highest bidder.

Put simply, the internet is wrong.

FUAC's offer was all cash. The Onion offered less cash, but offered other incentives (AIUI, a share of whatever revenue they make from Infowars in the future). Saying that The Onion's bid was lower requires you to put a dollar value on those other incentives. The fact that the two creditors (read: victims' families) that would benefit from those incentives were willing to sacrifice some of the debt they were owed so they could benefit from those incentives suggests that at least _they_ think those incentives were worth more than the cash upfront, and the amount of debt they were willing to sacrifice gives you an implicit baseline for that dollar value.

Given the site we're on: it's like saying that an offer with a lower base salary but higher equity is automatically a worse offer than a bigger salary with no stock.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#289

Post by floydnoel »

a12k wrote: post #230
ajb wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The creditors agreed to and supported the Global Tetrahedron plan to purchase Infowars and settle the bankruptcy. Seems like the judge is overstepping given Delaware law on this matter.

Delaware judges seem to have a penchant for that lately. Certainly not a good look.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#290

Post by impossiblefork »

preciousoo wrote: post #271
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?

Not a billion dollars anyway.

But 500k per person maybe, if it really heinous?

Post reply on HN