3 ms·

The lawsuit was filed in 2018 and Jones has multiple videos as early (maybe earlier) as 2016. I'm not sure how this makes any sense. I think Jones is disgusting

by toolz 4y ago

The lawsuit was filed in 2018 and Jones has multiple videos as early (maybe earlier) as 2016. I'm not sure how this makes any sense. I think Jones is disgusting and pushing paranoia and fear for a living is disgusting, but I can't understand any world where it's just that a person makes a potentially genuine mistake in their opinion/judgement, explicitly corrects that mistake multiple times and then only multiple years after correcting that mistake is sued. Intent matters and after watching the trial I have very little understanding how the jury came to that verdict other than they just wanted to punish a bad person any way they could. I think the world will be a better place if Jones and his gross idea of media, disappears, but I have a feeling he's just going to be made into a martyr here.

nemothekid 4y ago
>explicitly corrects that mistake multiple times and then only multiple years after correcting that mistake is sued. Huh? Maybe I missed something, but I'm pretty sure he was still claiming Sandy Hook was a false flag on Joe Rogan as late as 2020
- evan_ 4y ago
  He claimed on the witness stand during the trial that the FBI was involved in the murders- and then later yelled at the mother that she was being manipulated by deep state agents. Any suggestion that he's "admitted it was 100% true" are BS. He seems to be allowing (for now) that people really died and at least some of the families were not actors, which is an improvement, but he's not really caught up to reality yet. A lot of the trial was spent trying to convince the jury that there was some ulterior motive behind the lawsuit, and he's been airing stuff suggesting that the judge and the plaintiff's lawyers are shadowy government agents.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    I suspect a good part of it is that he knows and knew all along, but he made his money this way, and now his thought process is (rightly or wrongly) that if he acts like he sincerely believed it, then it's less evil to have said what he said because he was 'mistaken' and not a piece of shit.
jcranmer 4y ago
> a potentially genuine mistake in their opinion/judgement The standard for defamation in the case of public figures (for which the parents of the Sandy Hook victims probably qualify because it's that broad) is "actual malice"--the speaker needs to either know that the statement was false (at the time it was made) or entertained serious doubts as to its veracity. For non-public figures, it's generally lowered to "reckless negligence". The other required element for defamation is that it has to be damaging--you need to show that you suffered as a result of the allegedly defamatory statement. If it's at the point where the statement is causing people to issue death threats against you, it's not a "potentially genuine mistake".
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The standard for defamation in the case of public figures (for which the parents of the Sandy Hook victims probably qualify because it's that broad) is "actual malice" That's true, but also somewhat irrelevant since Jones suffered default due to wilfully refusing to comply with court process; there was no trial on liability, only damages.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    I was answering for the general case more than the specifics of the lawsuits that Jones faces; you've already covered the defaulting aspect well.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> but I can't understand any world where it's just that a person makes a potentially genuine mistake in their opinion/judgement, explicitly corrects that mistake multiple times and then only multiple years after correcting that mistake is sued. Had Jones wanted to make the argument that he made a genuine mistake rather than knowing libel, he could have participated in discovery and trial rather than stonewalling and getting a default judgement. Had he wanted to argue that he had made an after the fact retraction which reduced the damages suffered by the victims of his libel, he had the opportunity to make that argument, AFAIK, in the compensatory damages phase. > Intent matters and after watching the trial I have very little understanding how the jury came to that verdict other than they just wanted to punish a bad person any way they could. There is a reason punitive damages are called punitive: they aren't to compensate for harm, they are to punish, and thereby deter repeats of the action by the same or other parties.
- vkou 4y ago
  > he had the opportunity to make that argument, AFAIK, in the compensatory damages phase. Or in the years between when he started his smear campaign, and the consequences thereof finally catching up to him. Between this and the Tim Eynman verdict[1] (Who pretty much followed the same legal playbook, up to filing for bankruptcy[2]), it's not been a great week for grifters. [1] https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/judge-orders-eyman-pay-29m-reimburse-taxpayers-attorney-general-s-costs-campaign https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/judge-orders-eyman... [2] And then trying to take back that filing. When he realized that you can't use it to hide your stolen money from the courts. [3] [3] https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/bankruptcy-judge-approves-resolution-requiring-tim-eyman-pay-down-his-debts https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/bankruptcy-judge-a...
- gpm 4y ago
  > Had he wanted to argue that he had made an after the fact retraction which reduced the damages suffered by the victims of his libel, he had the opportunity to make that argument, AFAIK, in the compensatory damages phase. He did, and he made the argument, and played the video in which he claimed he retracted them to the jury.

by toolz 4y ago

nemothekid 4y ago

>explicitly corrects that mistake multiple times and then only multiple years after correcting that mistake is sued. Huh? Maybe I missed something, but I'm pretty sure he was still claiming Sandy Hook was a false flag on Joe Rogan as late as 2020

evan_ 4y ago
He claimed on the witness stand during the trial that the FBI was involved in the murders- and then later yelled at the mother that she was being manipulated by deep state agents. Any suggestion that he's "admitted it was 100% true" are BS. He seems to be allowing (for now) that people really died and at least some of the families were not actors, which is an improvement, but he's not really caught up to reality yet. A lot of the trial was spent trying to convince the jury that there was some ulterior motive behind the lawsuit, and he's been airing stuff suggesting that the judge and the plaintiff's lawyers are shadowy government agents.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  I suspect a good part of it is that he knows and knew all along, but he made his money this way, and now his thought process is (rightly or wrongly) that if he acts like he sincerely believed it, then it's less evil to have said what he said because he was 'mistaken' and not a piece of shit.

jcranmer 4y ago

> a potentially genuine mistake in their opinion/judgement The standard for defamation in the case of public figures (for which the parents of the Sandy Hook victims probably qualify because it's that broad) is "actual malice"--the speaker needs to either know that the statement was false (at the time it was made) or entertained serious doubts as to its veracity. For non-public figures, it's generally lowered to "reckless negligence". The other required element for defamation is that it has to be damaging--you need to show that you suffered as a result of the allegedly defamatory statement. If it's at the point where the statement is causing people to issue death threats against you, it's not a "potentially genuine mistake".

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The standard for defamation in the case of public figures (for which the parents of the Sandy Hook victims probably qualify because it's that broad) is "actual malice" That's true, but also somewhat irrelevant since Jones suffered default due to wilfully refusing to comply with court process; there was no trial on liability, only damages.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  I was answering for the general case more than the specifics of the lawsuits that Jones faces; you've already covered the defaulting aspect well.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> but I can't understand any world where it's just that a person makes a potentially genuine mistake in their opinion/judgement, explicitly corrects that mistake multiple times and then only multiple years after correcting that mistake is sued. Had Jones wanted to make the argument that he made a genuine mistake rather than knowing libel, he could have participated in discovery and trial rather than stonewalling and getting a default judgement. Had he wanted to argue that he had made an after the fact retraction which reduced the damages suffered by the victims of his libel, he had the opportunity to make that argument, AFAIK, in the compensatory damages phase. > Intent matters and after watching the trial I have very little understanding how the jury came to that verdict other than they just wanted to punish a bad person any way they could. There is a reason punitive damages are called punitive: they aren't to compensate for harm, they are to punish, and thereby deter repeats of the action by the same or other parties.

vkou 4y ago
> he had the opportunity to make that argument, AFAIK, in the compensatory damages phase. Or in the years between when he started his smear campaign, and the consequences thereof finally catching up to him. Between this and the Tim Eynman verdict[1] (Who pretty much followed the same legal playbook, up to filing for bankruptcy[2]), it's not been a great week for grifters. [1] https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/judge-orders-eyman-pay-29m-reimburse-taxpayers-attorney-general-s-costs-campaign https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/judge-orders-eyman... [2] And then trying to take back that filing. When he realized that you can't use it to hide your stolen money from the courts. [3] [3] https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/bankruptcy-judge-approves-resolution-requiring-tim-eyman-pay-down-his-debts https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/bankruptcy-judge-a...
gpm 4y ago
> Had he wanted to argue that he had made an after the fact retraction which reduced the damages suffered by the victims of his libel, he had the opportunity to make that argument, AFAIK, in the compensatory damages phase. He did, and he made the argument, and played the video in which he claimed he retracted them to the jury.