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

281–290 of 360 posts

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

#281

Post by ww-picard-do »

tootie wrote: post #154
krapp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you agree that Alex Jones is deliberately spreading lies for personal profit, and that this is harmful, but believe there shouldn't be any laws against it or any punishment for the consequences? Does that include the judgement he's facing now? Governments have been regulating speech since the beginning of governments. Every society doesn't exist in a state of maximal speech oppression as a result, so it cannot be…

No, sorry. I don't mean to imply he shouldn't be penalized in this case. I'm talking about literally everything else he says that doesn't get prosecuted. For example, saying the election was stolen is perfectly legal even though it's a destructive lie. Without a plaintiff who can cite specific harm, there's no crime

> I fervently believe that there's no practical way for government to regulate speech so they shouldn't try.

> I don't mean to imply he shouldn't be penalized in this case.

Those two statements would seem to contradict each other. How can you believe that the government should not try to regulate speech, yet it should still be able to penalize someone for their speech?

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

#282

Post by tcmart14 »

kypro wrote: post #200
58028641 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying stochastic terrorism should be legal?

Maybe? I don't think Madonna did anything illegal when she suggested someone should blow up the White House, for example. Would that count as stochastic terrorism? I don't believe that someone should ever be held responsible for the actions of someone else. It seems strange to me that what I'm legally allowed to say is limited based on whether a lunatic is likely to do something stupid. Also was this even terrorism?…

But you see the issue with this right? Taking this example. Osama Bin Laden should not have been pursued by the US for 9/11 for years. He did not physically fly an airplane into the twin towers, he just told another group of guys to do it.

Another extreme example. Hitler did not personally gas all the people at Auschwitz, his speech did convince others to do it. If Hitler had survived and was on trail at the Nuremberg trails, should he be found guilty or responsible for the murders at Auschwitz?

Taking less extreme example. A mob bosses doesn't performs hits himself, he tells underlings to do those things.

When your speech is direction in advocating, inciting, or ordering violence and someone does it, the most dangerous part is not the person who carried out the violence, it is the person who could manipulate the other person to do the terrible thing. Jim Jones probably rings a bell here. He didn't after all physically force the poisoned koolaid down the throats of people, but he was able to manipulate lots of people drink it and to poison it.

Now granted, these are all examples of criminal cases, not civil like this one. But the point comes across. There obviously are some forms of speech that should tie responsibility back to a person. In the case of a mob boss who orders a hit. The standard for these are high, which is good, it usually has to be direct with knowing that people will carry it out. So there is a difference where blindingly screaming into the wind to kill the president, that probably isn't going to stick. But when you know you are speaking to people who will carry out your will, then it does.

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

#283

Post by xoa »

hunterb123 wrote: post #274
xoa wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but we're talking past each other here. No, you're just stubbornly wrong at this point. > I'm saying the rest of the information on the phone that was leaked that wasn't relevant to the case was protected and can/should not be used in another investigation. No, it's not. I cited the law on it. They have waived any privilege over any of that, it's not protected at all anymore it's free and clear for the plaintiff's…

No you're wrong on this one. What you're referencing is only specific to the civil case in Texas, it is not material to the J6 federal investigation and irrelevant illicitly obtained material cannot be used for it. > You're ignorant of the law and unjustified in your anger about this So many lawyers here today. I know you really want to justify abuse of the court and violation of the Constitution to meet your vendett…

>No you're wrong on this one. What you're referencing is only specific to the civil case in Texas, it is not material to the J6 federal investigation and irrelevant illicitly obtained material cannot be used for it.

Nope. They forfeited privilege over it, there was nothing illicit about it. That phone image is now legally possessed by the plaintiff's lawyers. They can in turn be served for it by any other entity from there. It's just classic third party doctrine at that point. They could choose to fight it themselves if they wanted, but Jones simply doesn't have any say anymore. You're clearly Big Mad over this since you're trying to claim that legally obtained material is "illicitly maintained" but you're wrong.

>but the fact is protected information was leaked without AJ's approval, and irrelevant illicitly obtained information was sent to a partisan committee. It's an abuse of the system.

You've invented this make believe law in your head that is no doubt very pretty but doesn't really have anything to do with the actual law. Jones could potentially sue his lawyers for malpractice, but that doesn't magically pull back the information. They had a 10 day window to do that. Or perhaps another window when it came out, in court, to immediately object. They chose not to do so.

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

#284

Post by bandyaboot »

pstuart wrote: post #266
adventured wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It was an attempted insurrection -- there's plenty of evidence to support that.

It was an actual realized insurrection. Were you meaning to say it was an attempted coup?

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

#285

Post by Pakdef »

Karupan wrote: post #257
Pakdef wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Karupan - If you deliberately keep spreading a lie to profit from it, you should be held responsible IMO. By that definition, this should apply to Santa Claus story tellers and the Church? Can I sue them for poisoning the life of my kids? They are teaching kids that lying is ok, after all.

I’m actually ok with that. All organised religions are motivated by power and money, so why not?

You are OK with the Church lying because you agree with what they are saying?

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

#286

Post by lmeyerov »

paulcole wrote: post #250
russellbeattie wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been sort of flabbergasted at the amount of money involved. Evil pays quite well, apparently.

> Evil pays quite well, apparently Yes this is surprising considering … gestures broadly at all of human history ..

Maybe?

A troll farm might employ 50 people... But at low wages. Trump & has social media director parceled out a lot of money to bot controllers, but it didn't seem like a lot to any individual. We know some boring influencers go big (ex: Kardashians) is a data point, but to see that Alex Jones is in this league is surprising.

When I looked at some bigger anti-vaxxers, they seemed to be shilling courses that required a lot of work, so I wouldn't have guessed 8 figured in this world.

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

#287

Post by hunterb123 »

xoa wrote: post #283
hunterb123 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you're wrong on this one. What you're referencing is only specific to the civil case in Texas, it is not material to the J6 federal investigation and irrelevant illicitly obtained material cannot be used for it. > You're ignorant of the law and unjustified in your anger about this So many lawyers here today. I know you really want to justify abuse of the court and violation of the Constitution to meet your vendett…

> No you're wrong on this one. What you're referencing is only specific to the civil case in Texas, it is not material to the J6 federal investigation and irrelevant illicitly obtained material cannot be used for it. Nope. They forfeited privilege over it, there was nothing illicit about it. That phone image is now legally possessed by the plaintiff's lawyers. They can in turn be served for it by any other entity fro…

AJ did not forfeit privilege over it, he was informed of it on the stand on day 12. When sending it his lawyer said disregard as it was sent in mistake, he did not claim privilege BUT more importantly he DID NOT inform his client.

The lawyer certainly committed malpractice in that he leaked privileged client information without consent and did not inform his client so he could contest it, therefore the material was illicitly sent and obtained.

Also I'm not sure why you keep doing it, but please stop trying to annotate my emotions, you're as far off reading my mind as you are reading the law.

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

#288

Post by 7speter »

jjeaff wrote: post #262
zackees wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Sounds like maybe the only research you did was listen to what the convicted liar is saying. The reality is that Jones was given ample opportunity to comply and blatantly refused to cooperate with lawful court orders. Add to that, some of that information that he claimed under oath didn't exist, was accidentally sent to the plaintiff's attorneys by Jone's attorneys in a subsequent trial thus providing proof that said…

Is he guilty or liable for damages? This wasn't a criminal trial, it was a civil trial, or maybe I'm wrong...

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

#289

Post by roenxi »

DoctorOW wrote: post #247
roenxi wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Jones can afford to pay any of these figures that it says interesting things about how ineffective deplatforming is and really rather undermines the "big tech is a monopoly!" argument. Most people can't make $4 million in a lifetime, let alone these figures.

The problem with addressing Alex Jones and the rest "censored" is that they don't believe ANYTHING they say. Or rather, their spoken beliefs are fluid to suit the argument. You can't convince people there's not a "Big Tech" conspiracy about all these companies being controlled by whatever minority is trendy to hate now... You can't logic someone out a position they didn't logic their way into.

> The problem with addressing Alex Jones and the rest "censored" is that they don't believe ANYTHING they say.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/reminder-wapo-nyt-won-pulitze...

There are 2 attacks that are just not worth bringing up because we all know they are true:

1) [Politician] is lying.

2) [Media Personality] doesn't really believe what they are reporting.

What you say is true, but also not interesting. Anyone who doesn't already know either of those facts doesn't care to know. It is normal.

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

#290

Post by winternett »

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…

I'm floored by reports on how much money he has made alone, not even touching on the verdict or the case!

It's pretty wild that that amount of money was generated by his news machine, it would be very interesting to see where it all came from... Subscriptions? Sponsors? Yeesh, that's a lot of income. Other podcasters are going to still commit the same offences if settlements continue to under-weigh the earnings like that.

Post reply on HN