431–440 of 1001 posts
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There was no public auction of InfoWars. That alone is a stain on the whole process. The objective of a bankruptcy court is not to institute some arbitrary meta-ethical standard. It is to deliver maximum cash to the creditors in a fair manner. Again, maximimum value not cash.
I say cash loosely speaking. You at least cannot pledge income from debt that is presently being negotiated down or cancelled. That kind of thing isn't "value" because it's imaginary.
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…
Boeing killed 346 people
https://apnews.com/article/boeing-guilty-plea-crashes-245a38...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't watch the trial and don't know anything about Alex Jones but didn't he show up? His own lawyer "accidentally" sent his private text messages to the plaintiff attorneys. Of course the judge allowed that mistake to be used in trial. So I think he did show up as least from that memory of the trial.
And about the phone there are avenues to block the use of evidence accidentally sent to the opposition but Jones's lawyers failed to raise those when the plaintiff's lawyer pointed out the phone copy was included in the documents sent to them. They had the chance to get it excluded but failed to so it was allowed, it wasn't the judge allowing something unusual it was Jones and his lawyers being a complete disaster in the case.
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?
The same way that big media organizations get away with this in court. "This content is entertainment and there's no way that any reasonable person could construe this information as facts." If MSNBC, CNN and Fox News can get away with this argument every time they are sued, I don't see how InfoWars doesn't. But then again, court cases aren't about facts or truth.
The amount of comments opining here without knowing a smidge of the details of the case is sickening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you have posited a theoretical framework for how a bankruptcy court theoretically should work. None of this is how bankruptcy court actually works Literally started by saying I'm holding judgement until reading the opinion. My point is simply that if the reason the judge raised for re-starting the process is solely around the bids being sealed, they're wrong in a provable way.
Oh, it's not that at all. The problem with auction procedures in this case wasn't the actual auction methodology, but the lack of notice and the difficulty of submitting a bid. In any case, a judge does make the decisions in a bankruptcy court when the parties disagree about things. In this case, the creditors are not in agreement that this was okay. A sealed-bid auction is a bit non-standard in a bankruptcy, but the…
Which would make sense. That's not what the article quotes as the judge's reason (nor what you've said).
The quote in the article criticises sealed bids. That's mind-blowingly wrong to the point of having substance on appeal. It's so wrong I expressed scepticism it's actually the case, scepticism based on experience evaluating bankruptcy claims.
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.
Will the losing bidders drop out, or not? In a sealed bid you have to guess what others will bid - you want to bid $1 more than your competitors (or if you will lose the bid make your competitor pay as much as possible). The judge is saying because the bids were seals losing bidders had no clue what their correct bid is and some are likely to have bid less than they would have in open bidding. Who is right I don't kn…
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…
You're stretching it. In the US the government can't arrest for causing offense to someone specifically because of the 1st amendment...You can get sued for libel (very high bar and it's notoriously difficult in the US) but you're not going to be rounded up and put into a corrections facility for being offensive. This is the perfect illustration of the first amendment in the US vs the UK. In the UK a violent Maoist (r…
The Sandy Hook parents received death threats for years because of him. That’s not “being offensive”, it’s tormenting people and putting their lives in peril.
https://archive.ph/20221013141353/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> exact form of the auction is really really important though Sure. But nobody uses Vickrey because it's impossible to explain to the public why the highest bid wasn't accepted. > Without the second price you're trying to bid just enough to outbid the other party/parties which won't maximize bid size Which is exactly what happens in any single-round first-price format. The only thing an open auction does is facilitat…
> nobody uses Vickrey because it's impossible to explain to the public why the highest bid wasn't accepted Google used to use second-price for all their ads, though I think they've stopped: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/10858748 (Which I think, sadly, supports your claim around them being confusing)