421–430 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"steal someone's stuff through improper processes" How is a bankruptcy case "stealing stuff through improper process"?
The trustee here did not follow acceptable processes. Sorry I thought that was clear from the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
Anyone defending Alex Jones in this case is either ignorant, a fool, or an absolute garbage human being. I am going to pick ignorant in this case. > “Folks, we got to get private investigators up to Sandy Hook right now. Because I’m telling you this — this stinks to highest heaven.” > “Why did Hitler blow up the Reichstag — to get control! Why do governments stage these things — to get our guns! Why can’t people get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 exorbita…
[flagged]
A judgement is what happens when the parties fail to come to any agreement about a settlement; A settlement would be where you'd figure in realistic actual compensation odds.
Also: "Destroying a business" and "unethical"? Businesses are artificial constructs we create and protect only for the social benefit they bring; They have inferior ethical status to human being in terms of accountability, behavioral psychology, and the sheer intangibility of meaningfully "harming" a business. We should be employing meaningfully large civil judgements against businesses far more often, because our criminal laws being difficult to apply at corporate scale so often fail to deter criminal wrongdoing which the justice system would otherwise throw the book at a biological human for.
Steal one person's house out from under them using fraud and we throw you in prison for 10 years. Do it with 100,000 houses from beneath the corporate veil, and we bail you out for your losses from having to relinquish the mortgage.
If not sizable fines, we should be employing "The Death Penalty", and simply revoking their corporate charter and seizing all their assets in a blanket action, when they do abhorrent things. Because, and I can't stress this enough - they aren't people, they're potentially dangerous, amoral / psychopathic algorithms which will only comply with rules to the extent that rules will be enforced in a way that destroys shareholder value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment has nothing to do with moral righteousness, merely legal correctness. However, the idea that the InfoWars brand is worth less than $10 million is a bit silly to me given its reach among crazy (and highly manipulable) people, and the low size of both bids (and the fact that only people intimately involved in bankruptcy procedures knew when and how to put in bids) suggests that the auction process was probab…
So where were all the other bidders offering $10 million plus?
There were rumblings that Elon Musk was going to put in a big bid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…
Jones repeatedly violated court orders, withheld subpoenaed documents, ignored depositions, and disrupted the trial every chance he got, and so received a default judgement. I don't know where you heard the line about YouTube ad revenue but that's got nothing to do with nothing. Everything that happened was his own fault. He was extended plenty of leeway and he blew every last bit of it. If he thought the amount of m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
While that is terrible, I don't know if you can argue it is terrible to the tune of what they've done to Jones. Every major media outlet has some instances of, effectively, targeted harassment in their history. Whether the public endorses that harassment is more a question of how effective the reporters are than anything else. It makes sense that Jones would lose the case, but the scale of the judgements was eye wate…
They're telling him to stop. That's what the judgement really is. He refused to defend himself in court and he's been told that he needs to stop. And you need to stop carrying water for him unless you can point to a single specific thing that the court did to him that was not fair, and making vague and uninformed statements about the big picture result doesn't count.