Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Onion to Take over InfoWars

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 297 posts

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#131

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #122
austin-cheney wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absurdly large and deliberately so. First of all this was a class action suit representing 22 plaintiffs. Secondly, the number was large to punish the defendant for continuously disrespecting the count with bad repeated behavior. Third, there was no defense because the defendant failed to work with the court resulting in a summary judgment.

>deliberately so I’m not entertained that the court is playing an unrealistic and hyberbolic game. I know, I’m a weirdo that wants to see realism and pragmatism in the court systems even if the defendant is a real asshole.

What do you feel would be an outcome to this situation that aligns to the realism and pragmatism you believe the court system should have?

All of the threads related to this topic have had a pile of folks going "the amount was too much!" but hardly any of them say what they think an appropriate punishment would look like...

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#132

Post by PunchyHamster »

mikeodds wrote: post #25

Maybe I’m out of touch, but doesn’t a $1.4b dollar settlement for this seem rather… large?

Imagine if you tried to antagonize court at every possible point. Now imagine someone did it worse.

It was shit like him saying "noooo I didn't enrich myself, I actually lost money and popularity on site because of it", then court going "okay, could we see your financial records and site visits?"

And him just not delivering. Or not showing up at all, multiple times. Also asking for someone to deliver the head of the opposition's lawyer on a pike for a reward(that's not even exaggerating his words).

The resulting amount is basically "fuck you", and mostly coz he didn't even showed to defend himself so it wasn't challenged by court

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#133

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

fullshark wrote: post #97
dirasieb wrote: post #60

i 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.

The first amendment protects you from the government prosecuting you for the content of your speech.

The first amendment does not protect you from the results of your speech, like someone deciding they don't like you because of what you said. That person is free to dislike you for what you said and the first amendment has nothing to do with it.

Similarly, if you say things that are untrue and cause damage to others, you may be held civilly liable for the damage if they sue you and convince a jury that you lied with knowledge and intent to lie. The first amendment has nothing to do with this.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#134

Post by saghm »

tnelsond4 wrote: post #125

Organizations love to run controlled opposition. Just came out that the Southern poverty law center has been funding the KKK of all things. https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdal/pr/federal-grand-jury-char...

Given some of the other claims that have come out of the "Justice" Department under this administration, I'd be curious whether there are any more reputable sources on the matter. They've already been making a habit of trying to target people Trump dislikes with flimsy prosecutions (e.g. Don Lemon for covering a protest at a church).

Even beyond that, there's pretty clear evidence of the level of professional conduct of the department being pretty low, like their lawyers literally informing a judge that they lied about the basis of their arguments[0], cases getting dismissed because they were filed by someone who wasn't even a valid US Attorney[1] but who continued to claim to be one for another couple of months until a court order threatening her with contempt charges (by a Trump-appointed judge, for what it's worth)[2], and in one instance a lawyer literally requesting that a judge hold them in contempt because their job "sucks"[3].

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-court-arrests-ice-j... [1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/24/halligan-dismissed-... [2]: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-orders-lindsey-halligan... [3]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/attorney...

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#135

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

tsimionescu wrote: post #123
triceratops wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government didn't bring this civil suit. Ruling on civil disputes is the government's role. That's not what prosecution means.

This is an absurd line, and plainly wrong. If I were to bring a civil suit against you because the comment above offended my sensibilities, it would be quickly thrown out of court because it is your first amendment right to say anything you like, with certain exceptions that the government recognizes as limitations of this right. Even though this is a civil matter, it is still a judgement on government law. This is n…

Alex Jones will not have a criminal record as a result of this. He has not been declared as committing a crime.

He did take actions that, by civil law, created civil liabilities. He was sued over those liabilities. He failed to participate in the civil litigation process and lost badly as a result.

Civil and criminal law are not the same thing and your insistence otherwise doesn't change the reality.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#136

Post by cogman10 »

pie_flavor wrote: post #47
mikeodds wrote: post #25

Maybe I’m out of touch, but doesn’t a $1.4b dollar settlement for this seem rather… large?

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…

Just a few (minor) corrections

> his lawyer was so bad-behaved here he ended up with a disciplinary suspension

Jones had multiple lawyers throughout the process. That was in fact a big part of the problem that ended up getting him defaulted. Free speech systems (his company) do a depo with one set of lawyers that didn't comply comply with the judges orders, they'd go in unprepared and give the "I'm so sorry I'm brand new on this case" and then he'd have a completely different set of lawyers in the next depo that would rinse and recycle the same rhetoric.

It was also 2 cases, one in Texas and the larger one in Connecticut. But he pulled the same shit in both and got defaulted in both.

> the plaintiffs win by default and he doesn't get to argue his case.

The plaintiffs do win by default but he did also get to argue his case still. The trial was focused on how much damage Jones did to the plaintiffs with Jones arguing he did nothing and the plaintiffs showing how crazy it was (Including Jones's fans shooting up his house, getting fired from jobs, having friends accuse them of lying about their kid's deaths).

> And then for some reason he didn't even enter an argument during the damages calculation phase, so the jury just went with whatever the plaintiffs said.

Not really true. He did put forth really bad arguments during the damages calculations. But in both Connecticut and Texas the amount of damage was left up to the Jury to decide. They could have put forward any number from 1 to 80M (I think the highest amount). And in Connecticut the amounts were broken down for each of the victims (including an officer that responded to the shooting). That's part of what's made it impossible for him to unwind because each of the victims got different amounts of damages. There was just like 20 of them which is why the damages went so high.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#137

Post by tombert »

ChristianJacobs wrote: post #90
pippy360 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a good/entertaining source for this? I'd love to read (or watch/listen) more about it

LegalEagle[0] covered this shitshow in great detail with solid commentary. Can recommend. [0]: https://youtu.be/x-QcbOphxYs This is when from when Jones' lawyer sent a copy of his phone to the opposition...

That was an impressively stupid and/or lazy fuck up, to a point where I think Jones could have a lawsuit against his attorneys there.

IANAL but it does seems like "sending an entire copy of your clients phone and making no effort to redact it" could be a thing that, you know, is bad counsel.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#138

Post by tombert »

phatfish wrote: post #93
noirscape wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides Jones and his lawyer absolutely botching his defense and basically giving up the case (and pissing off the courts as I understand it, which is a bad fucking idea and usually also leads to larger fines), the $1.4 billion is just what Jones managed to rack it up to before entering bankruptcy proceedings, which froze his debt collectors out for a bit. Alongside the class action, Jones was iirc also facing severa…

Surely he just waits for the Trump pardon in 2028? Or is this something he can't be pardoned for?

I don't the president can pardon away a lawsuit. He could pardon away a crime, and sometimes the crime can be a basis for a civil lawsuit, but in this case I don't think anyone has seriously considered criminally charging Jones for anything here.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#139

Post by TheCoelacanth »

triceratops wrote: post #109
someguyiguess wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s sounds like a first amendment violation with more steps.

It isn't because there's no government prosecution.

That's not really the reason. Even in a civil case, the first amendment certainly would apply to whatever laws allow the civil case to happen.

However, the first amendment is not absolute. Defamation is still a thing in the US. The first amendment creates a higher bar than many other countries (especially for public figures, but the victims in this case aren't public figures), but it is still possible.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#140

Post by harimau777 »

mikeodds wrote: post #25

Maybe I’m out of touch, but doesn’t a $1.4b dollar settlement for this seem rather… large?

The settlement needed to be large enough to stop the behavior. Based on Jones' past behavior, I think it's reasonable to believe that only such a massive settlement would do so. Otherwise, the lawsuit just becomes a cost of doing business.
Post reply on HN