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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#571

Post by jjeaff »

Nathanba wrote: post #480
judge2020 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are countless documents showing his contempt of court, failure to produce discovery, etc.

[flagged]

You seem to be completely uninformed about the case. Jones has repeatedly defied the court, hidden evidence, refused to comply. He spent years lying about the parents causing them to be harassed constantly. Ruining their already ruined lives. He caused these parents to have to move multiple times to get away from his insane listeners. All the while, privately, Jones knew he was wrong. We know this from his private communications that his own attorneys accidentally turned over. To this day, Jones continues to spout lies about the court and the judge after multiple court orders and contempts of court. No amount of money is enough to undo the damage Jones has done. But taking it all is at least a start. He is a sociopathic cancer and deserves to be in jail.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#572

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

blacksqr wrote: post #493
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.…

This seems to me like a victim of attempted murder suing the assailant into bankruptcy, where one of the assailant's main assets is a really expensive gun, and the assailant is still saying how much they'd like to kill the victim with that gun. Surely there must be a legally viable way to resolve such a bankruptcy that doesn't involve the assailant buying back the gun with funds raised from friends.

You speak practically. Unfortunately the courts do not, and as a result, the courts are suffering a deficit of trust and confidence, nationally.[1] The problems transcend one case and unfortunately they do not point clearly to one answer or a single set of answers. Is it the system? Is it the laws? Is it the people? Why do we get bizarre elevation of form, and results wholly devoid of justice?

[1] https://www.mass.gov/news/supreme-judicial-court-chief-justi...

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#573

Post by fooker »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #196
delichon wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 230 of Title 47 says no.

he's arguably waving that by claiming he, and not the poster, owns the content

You know how we percieve absurd hacking scenes in movies?

That's how lawyers look at internet comments like this.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#574

Post by dnissley »

_zgx0 wrote: post #506

The amount of folks here supporting Alex Jones is completely shocking to me. He built a business out of attacking and re-victimizing parents whose children were murdered. He's scum of the earth. That business was taken away from him, and folks think that's too much? What the actual fuck.

To be clear I haven't seen a single comment that could be charitably characterized as "supporting Alex Jones". I see a lot of comments that are pointing out that the judgment against him seems unreasonable given the damage he did to these families.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#575

Post by teach »

declan_roberts wrote: post #344

The first auction was illegal and this article should be seen as the mea culpa. The families bid the theoretical future earnings of jones instead of actual money. The trustee secretly accepted, but had to walk it back when it was exposed. It's like bidding on a foreclosed house with $0 but beating everybody because you say you're going to rent it and pay back the bank with that money.

The first auction was NOT illegal.

The trustee was explicitly granted wide latitude in how to handle the auction, including canceling it outright. [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmDNz7irGgw&t=880

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#576

Post by jjeaff »

netbioserror wrote: post #483
acdha wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was extensively covered in multiple court cases which are public record. Why don’t you familiarize yourself with them and come back go this thread once you have a better understanding of what it’s about?

[flagged]

No, it was the court's job. and they did it. if you disagree with the decision, then you need to come up with specifics of where they got it wrong.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#577

Post by ceejayoz »

zer8k wrote: post #525
ARandomerDude wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has it been otherwise? See also: Hunter Biden.

[flagged]

> The Hunter Biden pardon literally set historical precedent.

It followed a long-established historical precedent.

Clinton pardoned his brother (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controvers...). The Bushes pardoned their Iran Contra cronies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controv...). Trump pardoned his son-in-law's father (and now appointed him to be the French ambassador; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-charles-kushner-nominatio...). Pardons have always garnered controversy.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#578

Post by cooper_ganglia »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #443
roenxi wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He's been ignoring the courts. I don't know what you want them to do? I guess they could put him in prison, but I'm guessing that would be considered harsh too. Again, for the 2nd time, its not what he's done, it's that he's ignoring everyone telling him to stop, including the government. I don't know what you expect the punishment for that to be. If it were you or I we would have had our asses dragged into prison a…

Call me crazy, but I don't think the government should be able to "tell you to stop talking" about something just because it makes some people upset.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#579

Post by jjeaff »

Nathanba wrote: post #475
jancsika wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a lawyer, but my understanding is the Jones/Sandy Hook case-- like the Fox/Dominion case-- was an outlier because there is nearly never that amount of evidence to be able to pass the high bar for defamation. So I think it's the other way around-- Jones was comically brazen in the claim…

I watched some of his videos at the time and to me it seemed mostly like the exact same content that he always does. Very much not brazen claims of facts, just musing and speculating that it's all fake and the parents are smiling so they might be actors. That's it. And the entire time he was emphasizing that he doesn't know for sure and it's all theory.

he specifically called out parents by name, constantly made claims that they were obviously crisis actors, showed pictures of the parents, and did nothing when his listeners started harassing the parents daily.

Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion

#580

Post by buttercraft »

zer8k wrote: post #476
latexr wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for being offensive. 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...

[flagged]

FFS, nobody is stopping him from speaking! He's being held accountable for his own words. You have it completely backwards: this is Free Speech in action.
Post reply on HN