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

The Onion buys Infowars

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#111

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

patall wrote: post #65
jacknews wrote: post #21

I'm very much not a fan of Q-anon and related subcultures, but the sandy-hook award of $1.5 billion is obviously ridiculous, and is clearly just a government/institutional exercise in dictatorial/systemic power. There is no possible way that someone ranting on the internet can cause 1.5 billion of emotional damage or whatever the claim was. In particular, the libel (and it should be libel, making claims that are not…

The number seems to be based on the fact that he made money of it. And if that was in the 100s of million, the fine should obviously be higher to ward of other people doing so (and not just have it as a cost of doing business). Kind of like the german movie piracy thing where the convicts had to give up thousands of bitcoin, which the state sold for more than 2 billion. (Beside the fact that in other liberal democrac…

There were 2 issues. The first is that he made money off of it. The 2nd (and likely bigger issue) was that he repeatedly violated court orders (e.g. not complying with discovery, repeatedly lying under oath, threatening the jury on his show while the trial was going on, etc). Judges and juries generally really don't like it when one of the parties is lying their ass off and ignoring the judge's orders.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#113

Post by rightbyte »

lenerdenator wrote: post #67
rightbyte wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the article is really gleeful. Somewhat ironic since The Onion could be brought down in the same way by defamation lawsuits.

> Somewhat ironic since The Onion could be brought down in the same way by defamation lawsuits. Unlikely. It's worth remembering that Jones was never actually tried for defamation. He instead received a default judgment. In the US, both sides of a civil case have the right to a fair and speedy trial. If there's delays, you had better have a good reason for them and they need to fit the rules of procedure. Jones and h…

Fair enough. I didn't know it was a walkover in the end. And it is not really surprising there was no sane defence.

I believe Info Wars etc becoming big is pretty much a symptom rather than the problem. And it has escalated lately. I fear that they will be used as excuses for getting at others.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#114

Post by atlanticaccent »

nixdev wrote: post #62

[flagged]

I'm a bit confused. Whilst you don't explicitly say it, are you not suggesting it would be better for the public's opinion of the justice system to not sanction Alex Jones to the full extent of the law, if at all?

Your first sentence is that the courts have to be impartial and functional. Ignoring the influence Jones has on the public and fully executing the law as it is laid out by taking InfoWars from Jones sounds like the courts are acting perfectly impartially and functionally.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#115

Post by hmmm-i-wonder »

rightbyte wrote: post #72
afavour wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like the article is really gleeful. Good! It should be. Alex Jones is a ghoul making money from dead school shooting victims. Anything that embarrasses him is entitled to as much glee as it wants.

Yes and he profits from fooling mentally ill people. Selling homeopatic pills and whatever. But I think the right to be wrong is way more important than getting at Alexander Jones. The precedent is bad.

There is a right to be wrong.

But when you profit off the suffering and harm you've caused by being wrong knowingly and continuing to cause harm, then its a very good precedent.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#116

Post by nixdev »

Taters91 wrote: post #104
nixdev wrote: post #62

[flagged]

The court system worked very well in this case. A set of parents brought a civil lawsuit against a well-known man who was spreading what they thought were lies and inflicting emotional distress. Jones had plenty of time to respond, and he decided not to. Therefore, the case was decided in default, as is the way all civil cases would have been. Then, a jury of his peers was brought in to decide on the size of the pena…

[flagged]

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#117

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

koolba wrote: post #89
benjymo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He knowingly rallied his supporters to harass the victims and their families. That's a bit more than "someone ranting on the internet".

I'm not aware of him suggesting people harass anybody. There's a wide line between saying crazy things and calling people to take specific action against specific people.

he repeatedly asked his audience to "investigate" the families and a number of them did so in person.

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#118

Post by nixdev »

Taters91 wrote: post #104
nixdev wrote: post #62

[flagged]

The court system worked very well in this case. A set of parents brought a civil lawsuit against a well-known man who was spreading what they thought were lies and inflicting emotional distress. Jones had plenty of time to respond, and he decided not to. Therefore, the case was decided in default, as is the way all civil cases would have been. Then, a jury of his peers was brought in to decide on the size of the pena…

[flagged]

Re: The Onion buys Infowars

#119

Post by ToucanLoucan »

deadbabe wrote: post #92
roarcher wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

Algorithmic governance

Oh yeah that's all we need is whatever tech org having even more unearned and unaccountable authority in our lives.

I'll fully cosign that liberal democracy has a LOT of issues but sweet fuck if we hand over our government to more fucking algorithms I'm becoming a terrorist.

Post reply on HN