brb. Turning my gold into piss
The person who downvoted this clearly does not read the new InfoWars...
The Onion to Take over InfoWars
101–110 of 297 posts
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are "they" and what have they blamed Jones for more than the murderer? Because I'm fairly sure no-one is claiming that Jones is a murderer or that the Sandy Hook killer was defaming people
[flagged]
Alex Jones knowing lied about the parents.
This destroyed their reputation.
Alex Jones made a lot of money from his lies.
The parents made no money from those lies.
The parents' reputation was sold for dollars, and they got no dollars.
That is theft. Alex Jones stole the reputations.
He should pay for what he did.
As for the rest of your nonsens:
* the families are and have gone after the murder and the family.
* defamation/slander is incredibly hard to prove. Jones' actions were so blatantly awful they met that high bar. Parroting talking points on bluesky does not even come close.
* Perhaps, you should ask "if helping Trump win was all that's necessary for a giant settlement, why hasn't joe rogan been punished too?"
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#103Not the direct point of this thread, but this being a nytimes link... I still can't believe the way those reporters giggled their way through the Hasan Piker interview the other day. That is guy is poison, but since he align with their views, it's all just rosy and silly to promote killing people on the other side of the political spectrum.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#104i don’t understand how this is not a 1st amendment violation can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc
This is not a case about Sandy Hook the event - it is a defamation case by the victims of that event, that Alex Jones directly attacked. This is the biggest difference - no one is claiming that all of the people who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 attacks were actually actors paid to pretend that they were grieving for their parents and children and friends. No one was encouraged to personally attack said victims a…
That’s sounds like a first amendment violation with more steps.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
With regards to defamation law, the first amendment does result in the USA having a higher bar for prosecution than most countries- GP still has a valid question.
The word "prosecution" implies criminal case brought by the government. This was a civil case brought by the victims. If you mean higher bar for litigation, then maybe this lawsuit and its outcome shows that the bar isn't as high as you think when it comes to defamation?
Yes I did mean litigation (didn't know that that term was a distinction learned something today).
To my understanding the case outcome is pretty much what I would expect, even considering the first amendment raising the bar. It's also interesting that there's been so many legal shenanigans in the case that it's hard to even keep track of them all.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#106i don’t understand how this is not a 1st amendment violation can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc
This seems like a good faith question to me, Jones clearly operated thinking he was protected under the first amendment, and it was not obvious to me he was going to lose his court case despite morally finding his actions repugnant.
What does the first amendment have to do with slander, libel, and defamation?
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context is that Jones blew up the court process every chance he got, setting a new record for contempt fining. The most important piece was refusing to comply with discovery (his lawyer was so bad-behaved here he ended up with a disciplinary suspension). As a result Jones received a default judgement, i.e. the plaintiffs win by default and he doesn't get to argue his case. This also means the plaintiffs get every…
Do you have a good/entertaining source for this? I'd love to read (or watch/listen) more about it
Knowledge Fight podcast is great. Look for their Formulaic Objection episodes to see the crazy show all of the court things were.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#108I hope Dan and Jordan can get the desk like they've always wanted.
I'm concerned they won't know what to do without Alex. Already going back over shows from 2006...
The likeness of Alex Jones was an asset of Infowars - according to Alex Jones. So Alex Jones gave up his likeness to The Onion and doesn't own it himself any more. The Onion can still have Alex Jones on the show - played by an actor - and Alex Jones will have to play a character other than himself if he ever does another show.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a case about Sandy Hook the event - it is a defamation case by the victims of that event, that Alex Jones directly attacked. This is the biggest difference - no one is claiming that all of the people who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 attacks were actually actors paid to pretend that they were grieving for their parents and children and friends. No one was encouraged to personally attack said victims a…
That’s sounds like a first amendment violation with more steps.
It isn't because there's no government prosecution.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
She deserved way more than that for the way they tried to smear her afterward!
Seriously, the reporting on that was so terribly biased that many people still think it was a frivolous lawsuit.
The result was wrong. And yes, I read the contra arguments put on and they were not convincing.