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

291–297 of 297 posts

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#291

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]

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#292

Post by wredcoll »

some_random wrote: post #193
wredcoll wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was considerably less on appeal and the mcdonalds lawyers didn't anatagonize the court every chance they got and it was literally 30 years ago and there was only one victim. Just with inflation (6.4m) and number of victims (22?) you get a much larger number real quick.

6.4m * 22 = 140.8m, an entire order of magnitude less.

Sure, and the mcdonalds case was a famously low penalty amount.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#293

Post by Traster »

latexr wrote: post #38
Traster wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with all silly internet block BS, simply reload the site and hit escape before the cookie banner loads.

> reload the site and hit escape What exactly does that do? Which web browser? I’m on mobile right now, so can’t test.

On Chrome on desktop it stops the (slow) javascript running which is what actually loads the blocker. You need a fast finger.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#294

Post by triceratops »

jklinger410 wrote: post #289
tsimionescu wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 constitut…

> is there something in the constitution that gives you the right to not be defamed

Have you considered that there's a significant cultural difference between you and the framers of the Constitution?

Those guys were mostly "gentlemen" in the 18th and 19th century sense. Lying, sullying someone's good name, and otherwise dragging them into disrepute was decidedly "ungentlemanly" conduct. I don't think most of them would consider it "free speech" that could pass without censure, no matter what the text of the constitution said. Let's not forget Alexander Hamilton died in a duel because of some words he didn't even recall saying.

Consider also that the line for what was permissible speech has moved over time. Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law#Pa...

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#295

Post by wutwutwat »

lynx97 wrote: post #279
wutwutwat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The list you just thought up trying to argue about literal jokes from a literal joke making company tells us more about you and your opinions regarding others than it says about the joke the joke making company made

Hear hear, what does it tell you about my "options about others"? Mind you, I am a member of one of the groups I mentioned. So, go on, make a joke about vulnerability, you seem to be the right person for this.

Sorry, you're going to have to take the combative attitude and need to argue with people and direct it somewhere else. I have real shit to deal with in my life that needs my attention. Hope you find your peace.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#296

Post by tekknik »

HerbManic wrote: post #13
phendrenad2 wrote: post #9

A million dollars a year for... what? A gag that fans of infowars won't watch, and there aren't enough anti-fans to appreciate? It feels personal at this point.

Tim heidecker summarised their thinking wonderfully. "I just thought it would be just a beautiful joke if we could take this pretty toxic, negative, destructive force of Infowars and rebrand it as this beautiful place for our creativity”.

why don’t they do this with the rest of the internet? there’s plenty of properties worse than infowars. like say 4chan.

Re: The Onion to Take over InfoWars

#297

Post by tekknik »

luke727 wrote: post #239
aqme28 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It's a lot better than if it were bought by simply a different far-right media outlet. This keeps it out of that ecosystem, which I think is a really good thing.

It's just a domain name. The Onion taking it over does virtually nothing to impact Alex Jone's reach.

Then the point was to send a message, which brings it back to being biased. I’m not a fan of Alex Jones but I am a fan of people making their own decisions about what content they consume. This sets a dangerous precedent that fundamentally stifles free speech. I wonder how long it will take Republicans to pull this on Democrats, which means this tit-for-tat back and forth will never end.
Post reply on HN