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

201–210 of 297 posts

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#201

Post by bassrattle »

oo0shiny wrote: post #171

For anyone curious about the events that led to this decision, I made a timeline that shows how it happened: https://alexjoneslies.com/

So as he is quoted at the top "Something I talked about like 15 times, six, seven, eight years ago." This appears to be true when he said it, judging from the rest of the site's content. He offered consistent reasons for his (wrong) opinion. And when he said, "I mean, how do I get a fair trial with stuff like this?", pretty valid given the article he's referencing. Sorry, but I don't see defamation here. And the un-doctored video of the dad is ODD enough to say so on the radio. Don't take this as defending him (because I do believe he's wrong) but I find everything he said to be allowable in an open, free society. And sorry, I don't find the parents to be harmed to the tune of a $B. That all said, however, as a Tim Heidecker fan, I'm pretty happy at the outcome. Here I'll say what neither side will say: Alex is the frontman for the "cabal" (he admits his dad was in DARPA and Intelligence). His job is to say their deeds out loud (which is part of their belief system) in such a way that few people trust. I may be wrong, so sue me for a billion dollars why don't you.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#202

Post by jklinger410 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #165
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Civil and criminal law are separate things, absolutely. But the first ammendment applies to both civil and criminal law - it is a limitation on the government's ability to create laws, not just a limitation on the government's ability to pursue criminal penalties. Alex Jones is only liable because there exists a law that the government created that says that defamation is illegal. Since this is a law, it could have b…

> But the Supreme Court has found that this is an acceptable limitation on the first amendment rights, with the specific limitations.

Right, and I think this example is more about maintaining a civil society than it is strictly about freedom of speech. I think it's pretty clear to say that "freedom of speech" has limitations, making the word "freedom" contextually debatable.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#203

Post by rootusrootus »

bassrattle wrote: post #201
oo0shiny wrote: post #171

For anyone curious about the events that led to this decision, I made a timeline that shows how it happened: https://alexjoneslies.com/

So as he is quoted at the top "Something I talked about like 15 times, six, seven, eight years ago." This appears to be true when he said it, judging from the rest of the site's content. He offered consistent reasons for his (wrong) opinion. And when he said, "I mean, how do I get a fair trial with stuff like this?", pretty valid given the article he's referencing. Sorry, but I don't see defamation here. And the un-d…

> I find everything he said to be allowable in an open, free society.

Indeed, the government is not prosecuting him or trying to suppress his first amendment rights. But that doesn't mean he can say anything he wants about anyone he wants and not have any civil liability, so it seems like the system is working.

The billion dollar verdict is his own fault. He got sued by a bunch of people, and it is pretty normal to shoot for a high amount and settle for less. If he had not noped out of the entire process he would have been liable for a whole lot less (or even nothing, depending on the jury). No sympathy from me.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#204

Post by tt24 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #48
mikeodds wrote: post #25

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

I don't think so. With how much money was made and direct attacks on individual members on the legal system, I think it's a breath of fresh air to see the rich and influential actually get punished. There's frustrating the legal system, and then there's lying under oath and executing smear campaigns against judges. If Alex Jones wanted a smaller settlement, he could've chosen to destroy fewer lies, comply with legal…

> rich and influential

This unidimensional analysis is so funny to me. When your lens forces you to group together Alex Jones, Bill Gates, and George Soros as part of the same “rich and influential” clique, maybe it’s time to reconsider your dimension.

Alex Jones is nothing. At best he can be described as a small business owner.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#206

Post by triceratops »

jklinger410 wrote: post #199
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.

The word prosecution aside. Who rules on the outcome and enforces it? The state.

The state enforces property rights too. Let's say someone won't let me build a place of worship on their land. Is that a "first amendment violation but with more steps"?

You could make any instance of "government upholds the law" into "constitutional violation" that way.

A ruling in a civil court is very obviously not a prosecution. Because prosecutors can't, by definition, make rulings.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47876627 this argument is far more persuasive to me btw.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#207

Post by tootie »

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…

It's even worse than that. Because despite his commitment to non-compliance and general contempt for the entire process he managed to comfound his own defense resulting in his legal team accidentally disclosing way too much including the smoking gun that proved his guilt beyond a doubt.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#208

Post by MeetingsBrowser »

bassrattle wrote: post #201
oo0shiny wrote: post #171

For anyone curious about the events that led to this decision, I made a timeline that shows how it happened: https://alexjoneslies.com/

So as he is quoted at the top "Something I talked about like 15 times, six, seven, eight years ago." This appears to be true when he said it, judging from the rest of the site's content. He offered consistent reasons for his (wrong) opinion. And when he said, "I mean, how do I get a fair trial with stuff like this?", pretty valid given the article he's referencing. Sorry, but I don't see defamation here. And the un-d…

He knowingly made up lies about the Sandy Hook parents for personal gain, and continued to do so on a regular basis for over a decade.

The case didn’t even make it to trial because he refused to turn over documents, likely because they would prove guilt.

Free speech protects your right to say your opinion, but it does not protect you from willingly causing harm to others for personal gain.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#209

Post by tootie »

bassrattle wrote: post #201
oo0shiny wrote: post #171

For anyone curious about the events that led to this decision, I made a timeline that shows how it happened: https://alexjoneslies.com/

So as he is quoted at the top "Something I talked about like 15 times, six, seven, eight years ago." This appears to be true when he said it, judging from the rest of the site's content. He offered consistent reasons for his (wrong) opinion. And when he said, "I mean, how do I get a fair trial with stuff like this?", pretty valid given the article he's referencing. Sorry, but I don't see defamation here. And the un-d…

He wasn't just expressing an opinion though. He was willfully lying. The burden for proving defamation is pretty high to avoid infringing on free speech and the burden was easily met. They proved that he not only lied, he knowingly lied and continued to knowingly lie after seeing proof his lies were materially hurting people.

Also he is not a frontman for shit. He's a narcissistic rage baiter who has never exposed any true story. Your nonsensical belief however is nowhere near the standard for defamation.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#210

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

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

if you're truly interested, please check out the podcast 'Knowledge Fight' which covers alex jones and infowars in stunningly minute detail, including the defamation cases in texas and connecticut. the main host was even called as an expert witness in one of the trials to give testimony about alex jones' involvement and denial in harassing and inciting his listeners to harass the parents and survivors of the shooting.
Post reply on HN