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

Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 360 posts

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#231

Post by kypro »

friesfreeze wrote: post #198
kypro wrote: post #163

Quoted post unavailable.

> People should be able to monetize lies. What? No. > And people should be able to say things about people or companies that might cause a crazy person to do something crazy. Yeah sure, but that's not the issue here. > If the parents of Sandy Hook were harassed then the issue here is surely the harassers? False dilemma. > The reason I worry about this is because if I believe someone is doing something evil does that…

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm kind of shocked that so many people agree with this so it's really helpful to better understand peoples perspectives on this.

I think part of the issue here is probably that we hold different views in regards to freedom of speech, and my mine are admittedly quite extreme. I disagree with libel laws, for example. I don't believe anyone has a right to a reputation, but I do think they have a right to speech. To address some of the points you made in regards to legality, I do understand that what Alex Jones did could be seen as illegal in the US, I think what I'm less clear on is where the lines are drawn and why what he done specifically is so bad that it warranted a $50m fine.

Alex Jones, like or not, owns a media company and media companies often do lie about people. An example that comes to mind is that Kyle Rittenhouse had some very subjective and nasty things said about him by the media and by people with large followings online (perhaps deservingly, idk). Many media orgs implied, or outright said that he was a white supremacist. And I think we can probably agree that isn't good for Rittenhouse's reputation. So I what I don't understand how it's okay for a large authoritative media company like MSNBC to imply Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist without evidence, but Alex Jones with his relatively small following can't suggest Sandy Hook was a hoax?

Am I miss-understanding something here, or were these media orgs also potentially breaking libel law?

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#232

Post by MrMan »

adventured wrote: post #189
nineplay wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I do have faith that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that truth will prevail over lies. I wish I had that faith but I think the Holocaust stands as a pretty big counter-argument. I'm genuinely curious about your faith, do you think that something could have been done in Germany in the 30s which would have preserved free speech and prevented the Holocaust?

The KKK was thoroughly defeated as a power in the US thanks entirely to the US system of freedom of speech; the KKK had a very large, potent base at one time. They were not outlawed as a group, sunlight-as-disinfectant overwhelmingly won out (and no, the US still having a small number of KKK members with next to zero political power isn't a good counter point). It was the ability to tightly regulate and limit speech…

I know very wealthy people in the south who are giving a lot of money to militias. does that count?

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#233

Post by Karupan »

Rackedup wrote: post #213
stjohnswarts wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He added a lot of undue trauma and made them the target of his rabid followers and they were constantly (and still are) inundated with harassing calls/emails/etc up to and including regular death threats, and some of Jones' unstable cult are fully capable of being mentally ill enough to do that. What would it be like to constantly be looking over your shoulder for someone ready to blow your head off

> stjohnswarts - He added a lot of undue trauma and made them the target of his rabid followers and they were constantly (and still are) inundated with harassing calls/emails/etc up to and including regular death threats, and some of Jones' unstable cult are fully capable of being mentally ill enough to do that. What would it be like to constantly be looking over your shoulder for someone ready to blow your head off…

> ah ok... so if I say something, and someone else does something because they think they should, I am responsible for it

If you deliberately keep spreading a lie to profit from it, you should be held responsible IMO.

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#234

Post by adamredwoods »

speakfreely wrote: post #153
bandyaboot wrote: post #136

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.

I think this is an important point. Many of us here live in cities, but in rural America there is a stunning amount of people who really believe that Joe Biden lost the 2020 election and that there was a massive, coordinated campaign of voter fraud. In many dominantly red states, this is not considered a fringe conspiracy theory but more or less generally accepted as fact.

Not only accepted as fact, but some US states starting to initiate laws around it:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#235

Post by tmaly »

zackees wrote: post #181
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Actually, no, the jury verdict on punitive damages is $45.2 million, but that is certain to be reduced before Jones is ordered to pay (there seems to be some dispute over whether a portion of the compensatory damages award is economic or not, and depending on the answer on that, the cap under Texas statutory punitive damages caps would seem to be somewhere between $750k and $1m; even if the plaintiffs succeed in thei…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#236

Post by xoa »

hunterb123 wrote: post #117
maximilianburke wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a leak if the lawyers fuck up. The plaintiffs asked the defendents if they wanted to claim privilege on the contents and the defendents refused, the ball is in play.

First off, his "fuck up" was leaking it, second it's still protected under attorney client privilege if AJ didn't authorize it. Your attorney can't just leak (on purpose or accident) information you gave them and it be used against you. Just because you don't like X person don't allow the government to step on everyone's inalienable rights. If you went to trial for a traffic violation and your lawyer accidentally for…

>>gpm: The law is explicit in this case that the attorney client privilege is waived by the attorney not asserting it within 10 days

>Please cite what you are referring to.

So you're misunderstand a number of things here. First, to specifically clear up one explicit part of the law here for you, this is a state case not federal under Texas rules. The specific one here is Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 193.3 [0]:

>(d) Privilege not waived by production. A party who produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege does not waive that claim under these rules or the Rules of Evidence if - within ten days or a shorter time ordered by the court, after the producing party actually discovers that such production was made - the producing party amends the response, identifying the material or information produced and stating the privilege asserted. If the producing party thus amends the response to assert a privilege, the requesting party must promptly return the specified material or information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege.

Further, there is explicit case law on this too, here the Texas Supreme Court ruling that inadvertent disclosure waives privilege unless there is an assertion of right within 10 days [1]:

>The attorney-client privilege may also be waived by inadvertent disclosure during litigation, if the disclosure is accompanied by conduct inconsistent with claiming the privilege of confidentiality. "[T]he essential function of the privilege is to protect a confidence that, once revealed by any means , leaves the privilege with no legitimate function to perform." Notwithstanding actual disclosure, however, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3(d) preserves a claim of privilege if the privilege holder (1) did not intend to waive the privilege and (2) takes prompt action to claim the privilege after "actually discover[ing]" the disclosure was made. Rule 193.3(d)"was designed to ensure that important privileges are not waived by mere inadvertence or mistake." But when inadvertence is coupled with failure to take prompt remedial action after discovering actual disclosure of privileged information, the privilege is waived because inaction under such circumstances is inconsistent with claiming the privilege.

Further, it's not just an automatic blanket thing. A lot of the information here was information that Jones/team were supposed to turn over in discovery. They broke the rules by not doing so and then lying about it. There was also lots of stuff there that wasn't covered by any attorney-client privilege because it had nothing to do with their communications about the case.

FURTHER, when it was brought up, neither Jones nor his lawyer actually objected in court! Which is mindboggling itself. But that too is a waiver.

Anyway plaintiff's attorney notified them, and they didn't assert privilege within the ten day deadline, game over. You're ignorant of the law and unjustified in your anger about this.

----

0: https://www.stcl.edu/lib/TexasRulesProject/TRCP186-193/rule1...

1: https://casetext.com/case/paxton-v-city-of-dall-1

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#237

Post by a123b456c »

sophacles wrote: post #227
kube-system wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is 20x charitable? For many highly political topics attention varies wildly between times when it is topical and when it is not. And further, some big contributors may contribute zero on most days, and contribute huge sums on one day. Many political fundraisers bring in large fractions of their income on only during a few key days or events.

Jones also made a whole bunch of money via InfoWars merchandising. A lot of it was consumables like suppliments. That's a steady revenue stream.

No post body was provided.

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#238

Post by dukeofdoom »

Kaze404 wrote: post #176
andrewljohnson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you divide it by 20 before multiplying by 365, which is a charitable read to say the least, it would still be an insane amount of money.

Keep in mind this is Revenue for a 50-75 person company. Some of his employees will be payed quite well. If they make 100k, the actual employee costs might be closer to 150k after all the government dues. So his employee costs alone could be around 10 million.

And if his pills really are sourced from the top manufacturer, then his claim of 20% profit margin of "food" might be correct too.

Re: Alex Jones must pay $50m in punitive damages for Sandy Hook hoax claim

#240

Post by TaylorAlexander »

adamredwoods wrote: post #234
speakfreely wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is an important point. Many of us here live in cities, but in rural America there is a stunning amount of people who really believe that Joe Biden lost the 2020 election and that there was a massive, coordinated campaign of voter fraud. In many dominantly red states, this is not considered a fringe conspiracy theory but more or less generally accepted as fact.

Not only accepted as fact, but some US states starting to initiate laws around it: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...

It always seemed like that was the intent. Republicans know that restricting voting rights helps them, and Trump moved the needle significantly with his work to do that. His super PAC raised something like $160m post election, so someone may have been paying for him to do all that.
Post reply on HN