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

281–290 of 297 posts

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#281

Post by tsimionescu »

shermantanktop wrote: post #258
jklinger410 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a ruling in a civil court not a form of government prosecution? It would be more correct to say that your first amendment rights stop at defaming others.

IANAL but I think of a civil suit as a substitute for the injured party extracting justice by less civilized methods. If you wreck my fence, I can come wreck your fence in retaliation. Or I can sue you. The government is only providing the venue for resolving the dispute. Now in reality there are political and other influences on court behavior. But the government is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant.

This is only part of civil law. Civil law also governs numerous government regulations as well. If you're fined for illegal parking, that happens in a civil court too - but it's still a suit between you and the state. Even in your example of a destroyed fence, the reason you can bring such a suit in court is that there are state or federal laws that I broke by destroying your fence. If such laws didn't exist, a judge would not help you.

What you're thinking more of is contract law - where two parties go before a judge simply to adjudicate a matter that is entirely of their own invention. If we had signed a contract that said I can touch your fence but in touching it I left a hand print on it, I might think the contract allowed me to do so, while you may think that the hand print constitutes wrecking your fence, and we can go before a judge to decide and enforce said decision. The judge then won't look at any state/federal laws, they will look only at the terms of our contract (assuming the contract itself doesn't violate any laws, of course).

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#282

Post by jeroenhd »

tt24 wrote: post #204
jeroenhd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

His influence is undeniable. Someone who owns multiple Rolexes is rich in my book. Richer and more influential people existing doesn't change that.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#283

Post by hagbard_c »

defrost wrote: post #278
hagbard_c wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have been far more interesting to read your reasoning instead of having you click that down-vote button. I don't agree with your reasoning but that is the point: we could discuss it, I could explain who Piker (a left-wing icon being pushed as a 'bro' by the party while he spouts utter tripe and nonsense, calling for murder of political opponents) and Owens (a right-wing podcaster who used to be part of the r…

> It would have been far more interesting to read your reasoning instead of having you click that down-vote button. Ahhh, I read https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments feed and saw your "Can the down-voters for once let go of their pacifiers" which prompted me to look at context. As a general rule I prefer to engage with things I disagree with rather than simply downvote or flag. I note now (I'm GMT +8 and have bee…

Piker is the "progressive bro" version of Carlson: both can produce cohesive narratives based on faulty premises, in Piker's case it mostly revolves around "thirld-worldism", i.e. all the woes of the world are due to the "west" being bad while Carlson used to come from the opposite direction but has moved to a sort of arch-conservatism where authoritarian rules and rulers are preferable over that messy (small-D) democratic system. Piker and Carlson unite in their anti-Jewish rhetoric, where they differ is in their icons. Piker hails communist leaders as heroes, terrorist organisations like Hamas as 'freedom fighters' while Carlson sees autocrats like Putin, (Qatar's) al Thani and Xi Jinping as examples of "strong and steadfast leaders protecting their culture".

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#284

Post by defrost »

hagbard_c wrote: post #283
defrost wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would have been far more interesting to read your reasoning instead of having you click that down-vote button. Ahhh, I read https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments feed and saw your "Can the down-voters for once let go of their pacifiers" which prompted me to look at context. As a general rule I prefer to engage with things I disagree with rather than simply downvote or flag. I note now (I'm GMT +8 and have bee…

Piker is the "progressive bro" version of Carlson: both can produce cohesive narratives based on faulty premises, in Piker's case it mostly revolves around "thirld-worldism", i.e. all the woes of the world are due to the "west" being bad while Carlson used to come from the opposite direction but has moved to a sort of arch-conservatism where authoritarian rules and rulers are preferable over that messy (small-D) demo…

Well, if he's a caricature peddler like Carlson, I'll likely lose interest fast enough.

What I can say is, suddenly I see his name about a lot more of late .. could be the usual rise and fall of Andy Warhol's thesis on fame .

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#285

Post by hagbard_c »

defrost wrote: post #284
hagbard_c wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piker is the "progressive bro" version of Carlson: both can produce cohesive narratives based on faulty premises, in Piker's case it mostly revolves around "thirld-worldism", i.e. all the woes of the world are due to the "west" being bad while Carlson used to come from the opposite direction but has moved to a sort of arch-conservatism where authoritarian rules and rulers are preferable over that messy (small-D) demo…

Well, if he's a caricature peddler like Carlson, I'll likely lose interest fast enough. What I can say is, suddenly I see his name about a lot more of late .. could be the usual rise and fall of Andy Warhol's thesis on fame .

He's being pushed as the fresh face of "democrat resistance" with all the right attributes: young, "edgy", anti-west, pro-palestine, "anti-zionist" (which translates to anti-Jew). He travels in the "correct" circles, went on the pro-Cuban trip to the island where he stayed with an the other champagne socialists in a luxury hotel while professing the virtues of socialism versus the sins of the west, etcetera. He seems to have a number of skeletons in his closet related to his treatment of women, his 'fans' and his dog which can be used to ditch him once he has outlived his usefulness in more or less the same way as the party 'suddenly' realised Swalwell was a creep when his candidacy for the position of governor of California made it less likely for a "democrat" to win due to the open primaries in that state where too many "democrats" in the race make it harder for one of them to end up in the top 2 for the final round of voting.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#286

Post by dml2135 »

Rover222 wrote: post #152
dml2135 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which Hasan Piker interview was this? The only one I saw was about shoplifting.

That one. They asked if the murder of the United CEO was justified because he committed "social murder". Piker is the left equivalent of Charlie Kirk - saying outrageous things for attention, but he has constantly called for violence, while Kirk never did.

I don’t think most people would say that the United CEO was killed for his political views. He was killed for the actions he was taking at his job.

Not saying that’s justified, just that there is a difference there.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#287

Post by defrost »

hagbard_c wrote: post #285
defrost wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if he's a caricature peddler like Carlson, I'll likely lose interest fast enough. What I can say is, suddenly I see his name about a lot more of late .. could be the usual rise and fall of Andy Warhol's thesis on fame .

He's being pushed as the fresh face of "democrat resistance" with all the right attributes: young, "edgy", anti-west, pro-palestine, "anti-zionist" (which translates to anti-Jew). He travels in the "correct" circles, went on the pro-Cuban trip to the island where he stayed with an the other champagne socialists in a luxury hotel while professing the virtues of socialism versus the sins of the west, etcetera. He seems…

So, ... if you're not American, what motivates you to care so much about any of this?

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#288

Post by hagbard_c »

defrost wrote: post #287
hagbard_c wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's being pushed as the fresh face of "democrat resistance" with all the right attributes: young, "edgy", anti-west, pro-palestine, "anti-zionist" (which translates to anti-Jew). He travels in the "correct" circles, went on the pro-Cuban trip to the island where he stayed with an the other champagne socialists in a luxury hotel while professing the virtues of socialism versus the sins of the west, etcetera. He seems…

So, ... if you're not American, what motivates you to care so much about any of this?

The influence America and most things American have on us here in Europe. Also, the way our state media and state-sponsored media here in Sweden report on it which is anything but objective. If you want to know what really happens you need to go and look for it yourself.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#289

Post by jklinger410 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #280
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You go to jail for failure to abide by a court order. Which is still distinct from going to jail for your speech. Alex Jones can continue to say whatever he wants, from a criminal perspective. He may be somewhat more aware of the potential costs of being a professional liar now, which might cause him to make different decisions as he analyzes the cost/benefit ratio for something he wants to say. The government won't…

This is not how freedom of speech works. The civil or criminal nature of any law limiting speech is irrelevant. What is relevant is if a law limiting speech is narrow enough and if it serves a purpose that is aligned with the constitution. Anti-defamation laws clearly do serve such a prupsoe (they limit only specific types of speech that is not of public interest, and they exist to protect the victim's constitutional…

> What is relevant is if a law limiting speech is narrow enough and if it serves a purpose that is aligned with the constitution. Anti-defamation laws clearly do serve such a prupsoe (they limit only specific types of speech that is not of public interest, and they exist to protect the victim's constitutional rights where they conflict with the a user's free speech right

I'm sorry, is there something in the constitution that gives you the right to not be defamed?

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#290

Post by [deleted] »

tsimionescu wrote: post #280
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You go to jail for failure to abide by a court order. Which is still distinct from going to jail for your speech. Alex Jones can continue to say whatever he wants, from a criminal perspective. He may be somewhat more aware of the potential costs of being a professional liar now, which might cause him to make different decisions as he analyzes the cost/benefit ratio for something he wants to say. The government won't…

This is not how freedom of speech works. The civil or criminal nature of any law limiting speech is irrelevant. What is relevant is if a law limiting speech is narrow enough and if it serves a purpose that is aligned with the constitution. Anti-defamation laws clearly do serve such a prupsoe (they limit only specific types of speech that is not of public interest, and they exist to protect the victim's constitutional…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN