“Judge refuses to allow sales of Infowars to The Onion, allows sale of Super Male Vitality Alpha-Z Colloidal Silver instead”
Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
601–610 of 1001 posts
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is being held responsible for personally defaming the Sandy Hook victims and families.
Thank you. Can you elaborate? Wouldn’t jones stating garbage like the shooting didn’t happen etc. be opinion? How were his statements defamation ? I missed where he defamed the families as I don’t listen to his shows.
IANAL, but the semantics of opinion vs fact are typically tangential to the court's determination of defamation. However, in many cases it's a matter of framing: "I think that ..." prefixing a statement can carry a lot of weight versus presenting it as a fact.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#603Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a lot of text to say “yes, it didn’t go to the highest bidder.“
That's incorrect - it's a lot of text to say it went to the second highest bidder. The onion bid was the one that provided more value to the creditors.
From what I've read, it's not incorrect. Orthogonal valuations are not part of the bid value. This is why The Onion was second (the winner). It was not the highest bid (the considered part). The end.
The Judge has decided that's unfair, likely due to some bias (intellectual, political, etc.)
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#604Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If the relationship is demonstrated to be as close as the Jones-Trump-Judge in this one, sure. Recusal is evaluated case-by-case so an all-for-everything situation, like you've described, is unwarranted.
Indeed - is there a history of democrat-nominated judges acting in corrupt manner enriching the politicians that nominated them? We're not comparing apples to apples here. One team is playing by the rules, and one team has burned the rule book, eaten the ashes, then shit out the ashes, then ate the shit again.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
"no consequences." This is basically going to be the United States for the immediate future, if you're connected to the right people. Downvote all you want, but we see it with our own eyes.
When has it been otherwise? See also: Hunter Biden.
The only reason Biden pardoned his son was that Trump explicitly said he was going to use the DoJ for a punitive witch-hunt. No father would ever subject their child to that.
If Harris had won, Biden would not have pardoned Hunter. Likely Harris would've pardoned him in a year or two after he'd seen prison.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#606Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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; h…
I promise this is an honest question: has ANY president since the civil war reconciliation blanket pardoned someone for an entire decade for all known and unknown federal crimes?
Ford. For Nixon.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#607Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, as a Trump appointee, and given the relationship between Trump and Jones, the judge should recuse themselves. If this case were an article in The Onion, it'd seem too unrealistic to be funny. Well done, Global Tetrahedron!
[flagged]
What's a BLM case? Do you have an example?
If the judge has a one degree of separation personal relationship with the party, then yes, they should.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#608I 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]
> It wasn't $1 bn USD worth of damages done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages is very much a normal thing.
> He has been charged the equivalent of the GDP of Samoa
He probably did more human damage than all of Samoa's citizens combined.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#609Jones 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…
Nancy Grace comes to mind, who has far more reach being on national television. She made claims about people who were later found to be guilty. Her speculation pushed harassment.
later found to be NOT Guilty* I typod.
Re: Bankruptcy judge rejects sale of Infowars to The Onion
#610Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> The intent was not to get restitution, but rather to destroy the business. That seems unethical Sometimes destruction of the business is restitution. Nothing unethical about that. Someone saying publicly that you faked your child's death is an unforgivable insult. Money is beside the point here.
And its not simply that he accused some parents of faking their children's deaths. He also specifically instructed his listeners to rise up and "find out the truth". And he did so repeatedly to an audience he knew to be heavily armed, and prone to violent performances of their beliefs. And he did so after being ordered, repeatedly, to stop saying such things, and to retract his statements. But he persisted, arguably because he wanted the revenue he received from having that audience.
Now, most of these parents have dealt with consistent harassment of varying severity revolving around their dead kids for longer than the children have been alive in the first place. Many of these parents never even got the chance to grieve in peace before the harassment, stalking, assault and attempted murder (not sure what else a drive-by-shooting qualifies as) began.
Certainly, if any of these nutters continued to harass the parents after Jones issued a retraction, that's entirely on the nutter. But the thing about our legal definition of slander/libel is that it does take into account what happens when third parties hear and act on the slander/libel. Like, if I accuse somebody of pedophilia, and somebody else, of their own accord, murders the person I accused, the murder is considered in determining what the legal remedies are against me, even as the murderer is on the hook for the murder as such.