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

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 

that is banning private speech

Following the discussion... and I agree with points from all aides.

 

But, there were provisions in the Pacific Trade Deal, I understand, that weren't public.

Do you agree with hiding such things?

 

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Following the discussion... and I agree with points from all aides.

 

But, there were provisions in the Pacific Trade Deal, I understand, that weren't public.

Do you agree with hiding such things?

I'm a fan of government transparency

but not at the expense of freedom of speech

freedom of speech is more important than government transparency

so if someone proposes a stupid plan to ban politicians and lobbyists from speaking about politics in private

I'm going to tell them to shove that plan up their ass

eyeball assumes that anyone who opposes such a plan just loves corrupt back room deals being hidden from the public and everyone who supports government transparency supports that plan

because that ridiculous false dichotomy is the only way to sell the shitty plan

Edited August 15, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Moonbox]

6 hours ago, cougar said:

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.

Absolutely, though I'm not sure AJ made $150M from Sandy Hook alone, and especially not from lying about a single family.  This was one suit among many, however, so it's possible he could lose much more.  

On 8/12/2022 at 12:31 PM, 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/

 

We mentioned this earlier, but it's a civil statute that the Courts can decide case-by-case.  The fundamental purpose of punitive damages is to deter bad actors and make it difficult to profit from malicious/incompetent/negligent behavior.  If the statute holds up in an egregious case like Alex Jones, it's difficult to see a case where it wouldn't hold up.  The message the Courts would be sending is that rich people are above the Law, and it could (but probably won't) end up being a Constitutional debate. It will be interesting to see it unfold.  

Edited August 15, 2022 by Moonbox

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I'm a fan of government transparency

but not at the expense of freedom of speech

freedom of speech is more important than government transparency

so if someone proposes a stupid plan to ban politicians and lobbyists from speaking about politics in private

I'm going to tell them to shove that plan up their ass

eyeball assumes that anyone who opposes such a plan just loves corrupt back room deals being hidden from the public and everyone who supports government transparency supports that plan

because that ridiculous false dichotomy is the only way to sell the shitty plan

So you like the idea of corporate and special interest group paid lobbyists doing deals in secret with politicians and making those deals public is somehow restricting free speech. That would of course include organizations like environmental and anti gun groups, or anyone else who has an agenda they want government to pursue.

[Moonbox]

Like the Illuminati WEF ?

[Yzermandius19]

28 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you like the idea of corporate and special interest group paid lobbyists doing deals in secret with politicians and making those deals public is somehow restricting free speech. That would of course include organizations like environmental and anti gun groups, or anyone else who has an agenda they want government to pursue.

no you moron

I don't like them making deals like that

but if the only way you can come up with to try and prevent it

is to restrict free speech, that's where you lose me

come up with a better plan that doesn't restrict free speech

and I'd support it

if not, then f*ck off

Edited August 15, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

no you moron

I don't like them making deals like that

but if the only way you can come up with to try and prevent it

is to restrict free speech, that's where you lose me

come up with a better plan that doesn't restrict free speech

and I'd support it

if not, then f*ck off

How does speaking on the record restrict free speech? They are spending your money.

[Yzermandius19]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

How does speaking on the record restrict free speech? They are spending your money.

restricting people from speaking off the record is restricting free speech

just because they spend my money doesn't mean they should have their free speech rights infringed upon

if that is the only method you can up with to incentivize them speaking on the record

you're doing it wrong

go back to drawing board

Edited August 15, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

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

 

Quote

 

The objective of the Registry is to ensure transparency of lobbying activities, so that the general public, the media and public office holders may know who is lobbying the government, for what purpose and in whose interest.

https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/rgstrtnGd#:~:text=The objective of the Registry,purpose and in whose interest.

 

The Lobbying Act we currently have is supposed to do exactly what you just said when the public isn't watching.  How do you think this arrangement is working out for us?

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

The Lobbying Act we currently have is supposed to do exactly what you just said when the public isn't watching.  How do you think this arrangement is working out for us?

better than restricting free speech

just because you don't have as much transparency as you'd like

doesn't mean fundamental freedoms should be restricted

get a better plan to address the issue

because freedom of speech is more important than government transparency

and you are prioritizing the latter over the former

Edited August 15, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

because freedom of speech is more important than government transparency

That doesn't make any sense.  Without government transparency, you have no government accountability and therefore choose just a different brand of tyranny.  Freedom of speech isn't some Holy Altar we worship above everything else.  There are established limitations to freedom of speech laws everywhere in the world because without them you hinder personal freedom and security in other (innumerable ways).  

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

and you are prioritizing the latter over the former

If you really exerted yourself, you might be able to think up a few reasons/ways that upholding absolute freedom of speech would result in fewer liberties, not more.  

[Moonbox]

On 8/13/2022 at 12:00 PM, 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.

That's not really how credibility works.  When you've proven that you're willing do say absolutely anything and tell any lie you think will seem compelling to your drooling idiot fans, your personal credibility goes straight to zero.  Alex Jones has absolutely no credibility.  That he sometimes talks about stuff that may be real doesn't really change that.   

On 8/13/2022 at 12:00 PM, ironstone said:

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.

China has always been an easy scapegoat seeing as though the virus started there and the commie government's draconian secrecy.  There's maybe reason to wonder and investigate this theory, but if Alex Jones turns out to be right it will be because a blindfolded, spinning monkey throwing poop everywhere will eventually hit the target.  

On 8/13/2022 at 12:00 PM, ironstone said:

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.

Don't post Russel Brandt videos here if you want anyone to listen to you.  The guy is just another loudmouthed nutter.  

[Yzermandius19]

32 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That doesn't make any sense.  Without government transparency, you have no government accountability and therefore choose just a different brand of tyranny.  Freedom of speech isn't some Holy Altar we worship above everything else.  There are established limitations to freedom of speech laws everywhere in the world because without them you hinder personal freedom and security in other (innumerable ways).  

If you really exerted yourself, you might be able to think up a few reasons/ways that upholding absolute freedom of speech would result in fewer liberties, not more.  

there are reasons to restrict freedom of speech

banning politicians and lobbyists from speaking to each other in private isn't one of them

that's all downside and no upside

we won't be any freer by doing that, just the opposite

and it's sets a terrible precedent

almost all nations on this planet go way too far in their restriction of free speech already

only America gets it right

you free speech haters are truly disgusting and next level stupid

you're even worse than many of the politicians and lobbyists whose free speech you want to restrict

Edited August 15, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[DogOnPorch]

25 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Don't post Russel Brandt videos here if you want anyone to listen to you.  The guy is just another loudmouthed nutter.  

 

The vanity of Communism.

[taxme]

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

Sometimes I'm reminded there may still be hope for humanity.  

Alex Jones, one of the world's most shameless hacks and ridiculous conspiracy theorist, is ordered to pay $4M to the parents of a Sandy Hook shooting victim.  Mr. Jones, as many as you may know, spent years telling the world that this was a hoax and the parents were paid actors and other such brainless nonsense.  

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/jury-alex-jones-defamation-case-begin-deliberations-punitive-damages-2022-08-05/

The mere idea that this sort of conspiracy would even be possible is baffling to me, considering the thousands of people who'd have needed to be involved to make up a "hoax" like this and keep it a secret, but Alex Jones never cared.  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.  

Whoopsy.  Free speech only goes so far.  When you're deliberately lying to people in order to make a buck, and when those lies are so egregiously shameless and harmful, and when the idiots who listened to you to harass and threaten people because they believe your made-up bullshit, the Law says you can be liable.  Even a Texas jury agrees.  

 

 

 

I am starting to get quite concerned over the use of the words dis and misinformation. Those words are now being used to try and shut down anyone who disagrees with the lefty liberal/democrats point of view and opinions. If one is a conservative they have to now face the fact that their opinions and points of view will not be tolerated by big tech.

Socialist media today is fast becoming a home and place for conservative censorship. There will be no more discussion and debating of the other conservative side of the story anymore with big tech. This is pure big tech globalist communism at work here. We are all pretty much now living in a world of big tech communist censorship. Believe it or not. ?

In America they have Donald Trump's truth social media and here in Canada we have our own social media called "Liberti" where censorship does not exist. All points of views and opinions will be tolerated and accepted. ?

[Moonbox]

33 minutes ago, taxme said:

I am starting to get quite concerned over the use of the words dis and misinformation. Those words are now being used to try and shut down anyone who disagrees with the lefty liberal/democrats point of view and opinions. If one is a conservative they have to now face the fact that their opinions and points of view will not be tolerated by big tech.

In the same breath that you criticize use of words mis/disinformation, you're nattering about lefties, big tech and how they shut down anyone who disagrees with them.  You're showing a remarkable lack of perspective here.  

33 minutes ago, taxme said:

Socialist media today is fast becoming a home and place for conservative censorship. There will be no more discussion and debating of the other conservative side of the story anymore with big tech. This is pure big tech globalist communism at work here. We are all pretty much now living in a world of big tech communist censorship. 

Your oblivious hypocrisy on majestic display.   ?

 

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Lobbyists are not after public support.

They should be given it's public officials they want something from.

More likely they know what they're asking for will not go over well so they try to pitch their idea to a politician in secret and leave it up to them to sell us on the idea.

Of course we can always trust our politicians to do the right thing.

Not. 

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I'm a fan of government transparency

but not at the expense of freedom of speech

Me too.

We're talking about the freedom to listen  though where nothing will be lost to anyone.

You seem to be deeply confused about the difference between speaking and listening.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

They should be given it's public officials they want something from.

More likely they know what they're asking for will not go over well so they try to pitch their idea to a politician in secret and leave it up to them to sell us on the idea.

Of course we can always trust our politicians to do the right thing.

Not. 

Never said that at all. Seems you do not know what a lobbyist is.

Just saying that a lobbyist, by definition is "Lobbyists are professional advocates that work to influence political decisions on behalf of individuals and organizations. This advocacy could lead to the proposal of new legislation, or the amendment of existing laws and regulations." and they are not after public support.

[ironstone]

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's not really how credibility works.  When you've proven that you're willing do say absolutely anything and tell any lie you think will seem compelling to your drooling idiot fans, your personal credibility goes straight to zero.  Alex Jones has absolutely no credibility.  That he sometimes talks about stuff that may be real doesn't really change that.   

China has always been an easy scapegoat seeing as though the virus started there and the commie government's draconian secrecy.  There's maybe reason to wonder and investigate this theory, but if Alex Jones turns out to be right it will be because a blindfolded, spinning monkey throwing poop everywhere will eventually hit the target.  

Don't post Russel Brandt videos here if you want anyone to listen to you.  The guy is just another loudmouthed nutter.  

And your reliable sources would be....?

 

[Yzermandius19]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Me too.

We're talking about the freedom to listen  though where nothing will be lost to anyone.

You seem to be deeply confused about the difference between speaking and listening.

you seem to think your listening is more important than politicians and lobbyists speaking freely though

that's not free speech

Edited August 16, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Never said that at all. Seems you do not know what a lobbyist is.

Just saying that a lobbyist, by definition is "Lobbyists are professional advocates that work to influence political decisions on behalf of individuals and organizations. This advocacy could lead to the proposal of new legislation, or the amendment of existing laws and regulations." and they are not after public support.

Seems you didn't pay attention to the fact I said lobbyists should be working to garner public support.

Perhaps you don't know/believe/care who or what it is that politicians and public officials should be representing when in-camera with professional paid influencers.

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Seems you didn't pay attention to the fact I said lobbyists should be working to garner public support.

Perhaps you don't know/believe/care who or what it is that politicians and public officials should be representing when in-camera with professional paid influencers.

you need to stop accusing anyone who disagrees with your dumb free speech hating plan of loving corruption

your plan just sucks

learn to cope

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you seem to think your listening is more important than politicians and lobbyists speaking freely though

You constantly say listening will somehow prevent politicians and lobbyists from speaking freely without ever saying why. You seem to think just saying it makes it so.

Quote

that's not free speech

It's free listening.

The public should have that as a right whenever and wherever our interests are involved and where they could be affected by what is being discussed in our name by public officials.

If you don't want to listen then don't but if you wish to prevent others from doing so the least you could do is offer an explanation why. 

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You constantly say listening will somehow prevent politicians and lobbyists from speaking freely without ever saying why. You seem to think just saying it makes it so.

It's free listening.

The public should have that as a right whenever and wherever our interests are involved and where they could be affected by what is being discussed in our name by public officials.

If you don't want to listen then don't but if you wish to prevent others from doing so the least you could do is offer an explanation why. 

you are forcing them to not speak in private

the public doesn't have a right to listen to private conversations

if you want to ban private conversations, you need to explain how that isn't a violation of both free speech and privacy

Edited August 16, 2022 by Yzermandius19