Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/…
The Onion to Take over InfoWars
211–220 of 297 posts
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#212Organizations 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...
It's sort of tragic the onion takeover came on the heels of him being right about SPLC. There's something morally questionable about the largest civil fine in history being against a guy who accused a shooting of being a false flag and then apologized a few weeks later when better information came to light. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been sued, but rather it feels like the wrong amount for how apologetic he was…
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#213i 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
Those "other people" were also Alex Jones.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> I don't [think] the president can pardon away a lawsuit. Never underestimate Trump's ability in decreeing something and hoping for it to stick long enough to cause real damage before the courts eventually strike it down - it took almost a year until the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, by the time the first large corporations get their refunds it will be over a year, and honestly I'd be surprised if the first…
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't seem rather large. The man made a fortune destroying the reputations of some people, and he did so by (provably) intentionally lying about them, without their consent and with nothing paid to them. They deserve every peny of that - he stole their reputations and as with all theft, reparations are logical. In addition he grew his following with those lies, and that following will continue to give him mo…
I don't understand. Nothing stopping him from lying publicly about anybody or anything. It's not like he loses his 1st amendment card or something. The only lesson he's learned is to hire a better legal team in the future for civil (not criminal) suits.
Is there any real reason to believe that the problem was his legal teams? You know there were a lot of them, right? Aside from the singular example late in the case, it is plausible that most/all of his legal teams were quite competent.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#217Not 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
#218I just recall seeing this story over a year ago... not sure at this point. and not having read the paywalled article.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#219For 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…
Alex Jones is a severely damaged man and a known liar. His story about his father has changed radically over the years and within days of his telling, each time mythologizing his Dad by way of making Jones himself special, or from special people. Was Jones’ grandmother psychic? Is he himself? Does God give him downloads of information over chicken sandwiches and in the middle of the night with clock time ‘proofs’? Why did Jones receive the download to go rescue Gene Hackman and then just not do so, if the battle against the Actual Devil is so important?
> 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.
I haven’t reviewed the site but Jones was the head of a whole media operation that knowingly defamed these people in a bitter time, and to sell dick pills. The depositions for these things are public and you can watch them yourself. Jones himself admits in these depositions his role behind the scenes, sending Halbig on his mad journey and what not.
The $1B judgement is startling but it’s based entirely on Jones’ own statement of impact in the depositions. If you’re being sued for the profit you made from lies, maybe don’t claim the majority of humanity tunes into your show and website every day.
Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A digital platform where, every day, visitors sacrifice themselves at altars of delusion and misery, their minds fully disintegrating on contact. Zuckerberg already did it.
No joke, I use Facebook every year or so to access the marketplace and at the time my feed was roughly half rage-bait, and the other half being what I can only describe as AI-generated almost-pornography. Both had thousands of what looked like genuinely real interactions per post, mostly from developing country users.
My feed is entirely photos of friends' kids, invitations to local events (things I actually attend), folk-dancing groups I'm involved with, and the like. I have literally never, not once, not ever, seen any rage-bait or political content (other than that directly written by friends - not reposted) in my feed.