Misinformation and hair-brained conspiracy theories have a price, Mr. Jones - $50M and more to come

[DogOnPorch]

Locally brewed...

[dialamah]

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 Alex Jones only had to pay a couple of million, that means he'd have made more money telling the lie than he was penalized for it.  That's not deterrence.  That's carte-blanche to continue doing what he's doing.  Penalties have to hurt or they're pointless.  

 

 

He may not even have to pay a million because Texas has a cap on damages.

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/08/texas-damages-cap-looms-over-alex-jones-sandy-hook-defamation-case/

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Me too. Beer's on me.

My wife's a bartender. Cheap beer...

 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

He may not even have to pay a million because Texas has a cap on damages.

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/08/texas-damages-cap-looms-over-alex-jones-sandy-hook-defamation-case/

 

He has other cases pending, not just in Texas

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 8/6/2022 at 1:10 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

that's on the assholes, not Alex Jones

Not true. Jones has been able to see the consequences of his malicious lies for years and has still persisted with them, knowing full well what was happening to the families. The lies themselves were also inherently damaging. There’s a middle ground to be found between America’s chaotic free speech for for all and Britain’s protection of the privileged.  

[Yzermandius19]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Not true. Jones has been able to see the consequences of his malicious lies for years and has still persisted with them, knowing full well what was happening to the families. The lies themselves were also inherently damaging. There’s a middle ground to be found between America’s chaotic free speech for for all and Britain’s protection of the privileged.  

no there's not a middle ground

America's chaotic free speech is where it's at

f*ck the free speech haters

nothing Alex Jones said incited violence

he hurt some feelings

whoop dee doo

Edited August 12, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

A trusted Canadian source...right?

Weren't you the guy who tried to freak us out over the ease with which fentanyl could be weaponized to kill millions at the push of a button?  China must ship tons of that shit to us. 

[ironstone]

Alex Jones was not wrong all the time. I don't know what he was thinking when he said those things about Sandy Hook, that was truly crazy. But on other subjects he had some credibility. He was one of the first to suggest that Covid came from a Chinese lab. At first that was totally dismissed as nonsense but as time went on it seems that theory simply cannot be dismissed now.

We can't trust everything we hear from governments. Most of the time they lie to us and governments of all political stripes do it, some more than others.

I would wager that the law still will not be applied equally to all. Many powerful people on the left seem to be above the law.

[ironstone]

Russell Brand hits it on the head.

 

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

Alex Jones was not wrong all the time. I don't know what he was thinking when he said those things about Sandy Hook, that was truly crazy. But on other subjects he had some credibility. He was one of the first to suggest that Covid came from a Chinese lab. At first that was totally dismissed as nonsense but as time went on it seems that theory simply cannot be dismissed now.

We can't trust everything we hear from governments. Most of the time they lie to us and governments of all political stripes do it, some more than others.

I would wager that the law still will not be applied equally to all. Many powerful people on the left seem to be above the law.

So what? He is being sued for what he did to the Sandy Hook parents, not what he said about Covid.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, ironstone said:

Many powerful people on the left seem to be above the law.

Try outlawing in-camera lobbying.

It's really the only thing we haven't tried in terms of forcing politicians to be accountable.

 

[Yzermandius19]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Try outlawing in-camera lobbying.

It's really the only thing we haven't tried in terms of forcing politicians to be accountable.

that's restricting free speech

that's not going to force politicians to be accountable

all downside and no upside

[marcus]

17 hours ago, ironstone said:

Alex Jones was not wrong all the time. I don't know what he was thinking when he said those things about Sandy Hook, that was truly crazy. But on other subjects he had some credibility. He was one of the first to suggest that Covid came from a Chinese lab. At first that was totally dismissed as nonsense but as time went on it seems that theory simply cannot be dismissed now.

We can't trust everything we hear from governments. Most of the time they lie to us and governments of all political stripes do it, some more than others.

I would wager that the law still will not be applied equally to all. Many powerful people on the left seem to be above the law.

Lots of truth by Russel Brand. 

AJ fxcked himself with Sandy Hook and truly hurts his credibility with his promotion of Trump.

There is nothing wrong with calling out Biden/Clinton and their corruption and selfishness, and calling out Trump for the slimeball car salesman he is.

Putting aside that I may not agree with everything he stands for, the only genuine mainstream politician in the U.S. is Bernie Sanders. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by marcus

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

that's restricting free speech

No it doesn't, not a single bit. In fact it would give lobbyists a greater ability to reach out to the public for even broader support.   

[Aristides]

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

that's restricting free speech

that's not going to force politicians to be accountable

all downside and no upside

Why do you have a problem with lobbying being public knowledge? It would allow people to know who is influencing their representatives.

That would restrict secret speech, not free speech.

[Yzermandius19]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

No it doesn't, not a single bit. In fact it would give lobbyists a greater ability to reach out to the public for even broader support.   

then why would need to force them?

if they want to do it on their own, fine

if they don't, you don't get to restrict their speech

[Yzermandius19]

8 hours ago, marcus said:

Lots of truth by Russel Brand. 

AJ fxcked himself with Sandy Hook and truly hurts his credibility with his promotion of Trump.

There is nothing wrong with calling out Biden/Clinton and their corruption and selfishness, and calling out Trump for the slimeball car salesman he is.

Putting aside that I may not agree with everything he stands for, the only genuine mainstream politician in the U.S. is Bernie Sanders. 

nonsense

his promotion of Trump boosts his credibility

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

then why would need to force them?

To try and prevent the public from being deliberately mislead.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

To try and prevent the public from being deliberately mislead.

that doesn't prevent the public from being mislead

or the politicians from being mislead 

and forcing them to do it is infringing on free speech

all downside no upside

there is no easy fix that prevents the public from being mislead

and restrictions on free speech certainly won't accomplish that

your plan is terrible

your wishful thinking simply blinds you to it's obvious faults

Edited August 14, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

that doesn't prevent the public from being mislead

or the politicians from being mislead 

and forcing them to do it is infringing on free speech

all downside no upside

there is no easy fix that prevents the public from being mislead

and restrictions on free speech certainly won't accomplish that

your plan is terrible

your wishful thinking simply blinds you to it's obvious faults

How is making what you say public, a restriction of free speech? Why do you like secrecy so much?

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

How is making what you say public, a restriction of free speech? Why do you like secrecy so much?

how is banning private speech for lobbyists and politicians a restriction of free speech?

if you can't do that math, you're an idiot

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

how is banning private speech for lobbyists and politicians a restriction of free speech?

How does allowing the public to listen to discussions between public officials and paid lobbyists about issues that affect the public's interests restrict anyone's ability to speak their minds as freely and eloquently as they wish?

Nobody's talking about banning private speech. Quit changing the subject.

Edited August 15, 2022 by eyeball

[cougar]

On 8/5/2022 at 11:50 PM, Moonbox said:

All that mattered to him was that he could yell at the camera, and rile up the fools who watched him by telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.  

 

No, it wasn't about yelling; more about money making.  He made a pile and hid some $150 mil once the court proceedings against him started.

If you made $150 mil through your crime and the court orders you to pay $50 mil back, it doesn't seem like justice to me, more like taxation.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

How does allowing the public to listen to discussions between public officials and paid lobbyists about issues that affect the public's interests restrict anyone's ability to speak their minds as freely and eloquently as they wish?

Nobody's talking about banning private speech. Quit changing the subject.

by forcing them to only speak to each other about certain topics when the public is watching

that is banning private speech

just because you are only banning politicians and lobbyists from talking in private about issues that effect the public

doesn't make it not a restriction on free speech

you liking the censorship doesn't make it not censorship 

this isn't complicated, stop being so stupid

Edited August 15, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[ExFlyer]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

No it doesn't, not a single bit. In fact it would give lobbyists a greater ability to reach out to the public for even broader support.   

Lobbyists are not after public support.