161–170 of 360 posts
Honest question. Isn't this off topic according to the guidelines? It's something that's being discussed everywhere on the news and, in my opinion, is more likely to cause outrage than satisfy any intellectual curiosity.
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.
It's a shame that while perjury during a civil trial is illegal, it's almost never prosecuted. His behavior was particularly egregious and I doubt this judgement will stop him from continuing to target everyone involved in the trial.
I mean he targeted the judge during the trial, which is... not necessarily the smartest thing in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He claimed that a judgment of $2M would bankrupt Infowars. But emails revealed that, at times, revenue was $800K -per day-, and the judge asked him to explain how potentially less than 3 days revenue would have that effect.
InfoWars made $800K in one day, not _per_ day. Jones claims that was their best day ever. Which makes total sense to me... businesses have huge boom days, and plaintiff lawyers will happily imply you should multiply that figure by 365 days.
What happened to his lawyer, who accidentally (?) sent his phone conversations to the opposing party?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s also interesting because he could still be 100% correct and they actually be crisis actors and the whole nine yards but that doesn’t actually matter in the outcome of the case as far as I can tell.
How would Jones be found liable for defamation if his claims were “100% correct”?
Which is what he did, and why there are two default judgements against him.
It doesn't matter how right you are, or how stupid a lawsuit against you is - if you don't show up, you aren't likely to win.
Quoted post unavailable.
Obviously subjective and would be determined in a court of law (public figure vs not a public figure). And besides, there are still limits to that regardless. If you publish a damaging lie about a public figure, they can sue you for very large amounts of money as they see fit. For example, if you're the NY Times and you print that a very famous actor is a pedo, and do so without enormous amounts of proof, prepare for an epic lawsuit that you will lose badly.
Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? I don’t know all the rules around when speech isn’t protected but the article doesn’t really cover why this wasn’t. Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?
> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event? Not in any legal sense. 1) Defamation is already well established in US law; no novel legal questions came up regarding the borders of protected speach in this case. 2) Precedents are never set at trials. In order for anything from this case to become precedent, it would need to b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opposing, though not necessarily contradictory cliche is of course some variation of “a lie makes it around the world before the truth is out of bed”. That’s the problem, there’s plenty of situations where the lie has done it’s damage long before the truth can achieve much beyond the academic.
and it's still more important to have free speech because who decides "truth" and "lie"... and what happens when those in power switch and the other side decides. Want Biden or Obama to have some power? Are you going to be okay with Bush or Trump gets that power?