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

351–360 of 360 posts

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

#351

Post by jjeaff »

7speter wrote: post #288
jjeaff wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It was a civil trial. So convicted isn't the correct word, but found to be a liar by the court, nonetheless.

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

#352

Post by stouset »

sneak wrote: post #306
winternett wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He sells snake oil nutritional supplements and prepper crap, just like most niche male podcasters/personalities. You can't generally make that much revenue from content alone unless you are like the top .0001% like Joe Rogan.

Who also sells snake oil nutritional supplements and prepper crap…

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

#353

Post by bandyaboot »

phpisthebest wrote: post #347
pstuart wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but not buying the "both sides are the same" bit. > Neither side wants to acknowledge anything that would be seen as supporting the position of the "others" You seem to be holding up your side of that argument but I don't roll that way. I abhor partisan politics and am happy to point out flaws of the Dem establishment. As to the last election, it was as fair as one can hope for -- you're taking the defense of t…

>>it was as fair as one can hope for - I dont think when you have governors of various states in real time changing election rules, and regulations under "emergency" powers can be considered "fair it one can hope" Also contrary to to democrat talking points there have been successful legal challenges to those election regulation modifications done by governors or election boards. 2020 election was unusual for a varie…

> I dont think when you have governors of various states in real time changing election rules, and regulations under "emergency" powers can be considered "fair it one can hope"

Which changes that were made as we tried to navigate a presidential year election during a pandemic do you believe made the election unfair? Why did the vast majority of the complaining about these changes come after the election rather than as they were being made?

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

#358

Post by phpisthebest »

bandyaboot wrote: post #353
phpisthebest wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>it was as fair as one can hope for - I dont think when you have governors of various states in real time changing election rules, and regulations under "emergency" powers can be considered "fair it one can hope" Also contrary to to democrat talking points there have been successful legal challenges to those election regulation modifications done by governors or election boards. 2020 election was unusual for a varie…

> I dont think when you have governors of various states in real time changing election rules, and regulations under "emergency" powers can be considered "fair it one can hope" Which changes that were made as we tried to navigate a presidential year election during a pandemic do you believe made the election unfair? Why did the vast majority of the complaining about these changes come after the election rather than a…

All of them, and there were lots of complaints while it was happening.

I dont believe governors have, or should have, the power to change election law at all, for any reason even "during a pandemic"

I also dont believe governors should have most of their so called "emergency powers" that is ripe for abuse, and many governors did just that, and continue to do just that even outside the election context

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

#359

Post by spiralx »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #279
noduerme wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> He tried to convince the world that the crime didn't actually happen and even worse tried to convince the world that the dead were actors and other nonsense. I'm a Jewish grandson of Holocaust survivors. I'm also American. I'm pretty happy our country has not adopted laws against holocaust denial in the way Germany or Canada have. I appreciate the thought behind those laws. But I appreciate freedom of speech more.…

Every time I've had the misfortune to speak with actual Nazis, the first, and commonly the loudest talking point they make in support of their beliefs is that, if what they are saying is fake and is so easily debunkable, why do people feel the need to censor them? The argument is obviously wrong, for a number of reasons, but I wouldn't mind denying them that talking point.

Why do libel and slander laws exist when someone can just debunk any lies told about them? And then the next lie, and the next one, and so on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM

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

#360

Post by luxuryballs »

danso wrote: post #159
luxuryballs wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also interesting because he could still be 100% correct and they actually be crisis actors and the whole nine yards but that doesn’t actually matter in the outcome of the case as far as I can tell.

How would Jones be found liable for defamation if his claims were “100% correct”?

If it’s confirmed he was wrong then who would be even asking?
Post reply on HN