31 ms·

Alex Jones told to pay $965M damages to Sandy Hook victims' families

• wyager 4y ago
• adamrezich 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • fairity 4y ago
    Bringing up unpunished propaganda during the Bush era is irrelevant when most here would agree that was equally vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right. The predominant perspective here is that free speech should be protected, but if you are spreading lies to make a profit, society ought to take back that profit. That seems like a pretty reasonable take to me, but I'd entertain counterarguments if you have any. As for whether the punishment here fits the crime, maybe you're underestimating the scale of profit he's made off his lies?
    • adamrezich 4y ago
      • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > I lack the vocabulary and metaphorcraft necessary to even begin to break down such a false equivalence Odd given it was your comment, not the one you're replying to, that first drew the analogy.
        • adamrezich 4y ago
          yes, I brought up another event and compared and contrasted the two, with the intent of demonstrating how the two things are not equivalent, yet the demonstrably more impactful media falsehood campaign remains wholly unpunished, contrasted with this situation, which is being punished rather dramatically. fairity characterized these two events as directly equivalent ("most here would agree that was equally vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right."). how's that "odd"? -- edit, because I'm still Posting Too Fast, somehow: -- with the load-bearing word "equally" removed, your response to my post begins: > Bringing up unpunished propaganda during the Bush era is irrelevant when most here would agree that was vile and punishable. Two wrongs don't make a right. what conversation are you trying to have? "bad things are bad?" comparing and contrasting formally similar situations (media lies) with differing magnitudes (independent media organization calling single-digit number of individuals lying paid actors vs. an organized propaganda campaign that manufactured civilian consent for a foreign-soil invasion leading to a six-digit death toll) and the outcomes thereof (nearly a billion in fines vs. no punishment whatsoever) is not worth discussing? the point of my post was to demonstrate how unpunished coordinated mainstream media lies are, by using an example of something that happened in the lifetime of nearly everyone who reads HN and basically everyone agrees was a concerted effort in willfully propagandistically disseminating misinformation, which resulted in wide-scale death and destruction, completely without any punishment of any kind whatsoever, to this day. then you compare and contrast that with Alex Jones, whom you have been told repeatedly by mainstream media outlets is a terrible, terrible person, for defaming about a handful of individuals to his audience (which is sizable, but not on the scale of "everyone in the US paying attention to the news, pre-social media, in the 2000s, in the wake of 9/11"). how is anyone supposed to come away from this thinking justice has been served in any way?
          • fairity 4y ago
            You're hanging on to poor word choice, without making an honest effort to engage with the actual idea. I'd suggest removing the word "equally", and making an honest attempt at having a conversation.
  • ezekg 4y ago
    Tip: You can vouch for the [flagged] [dead] and it may bring it back. You have to click the comment timestamp to see the vouch option.
• RadixDLT 4y ago
  hehe now they are just messing with him
• pGuitar 4y ago
  That's a bit nuts
  • chatterhead 4y ago
    Yes it is. Why didn't Wolfgang Halbig get hit with the same?
    • permo-w 4y ago
      put it this way: I have never in my life heard of this man, and I doubt most people have either. Alex Jones has somewhere in the region of 100m viewers
      • chatterhead 4y ago
        Correct. That's the point. If free speech is based on how much you make or how many people listen to you then it's not free speech it's a system for extortion.
        • permo-w 4y ago
          courts award damages based on ... damages
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
          • pGuitar 4y ago
            doesn't seem like it
            • permo-w 4y ago
              the person I'm talking to seems to think that an actor with a smaller audience and smaller capacity to cause damages should be punished equally to someone with a bigger audience and bigger capacity to cause damages. with great power comes great responsibility, and the law reflects this whether you think courts generally award damages appropriately or not is beside the point
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• Arrath 4y ago
  While nothing can bring back their children, siblings, or classmates, one hopes (but doesn't expect) that this will help consign a particularly vile and repugnant conspiracy theory to the dustbin of polite discourse.
  • ifqwz 4y ago
  • dexwiz 4y ago
    Doubt. The people who believe this kind of stuff will just say it's the deep state trying to cover up their conspiracy or some equally asinine garbage. They have a persecution fetish, and any sort of punishment will just cause them to double down.
    • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      "There's none so blind as those that just won't see."
    • wahern 4y ago
      Such public accounting does seem to have value in reducing the number of people (present and future) not yet committed to his cult, but who otherwise might. And while there'll be more Alex Jones personalities, for a little while at least they'll likely moderate their behavior more than they otherwise might.
    • permo-w 4y ago
      odds are Alex Jones will move somewhere with a poor judicial relationship with the US and add this to his narrative
      • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Don't give him ideas. But if he does, making money from this trash (or at least from a US audience for it) may be harder.
• ivraatiems 4y ago
  This is great news, but we should temper our expectations: It's likely that Jones will appeal and keep this tied up for years before he has to pay anything. Even if he is eventually obligated to pay some amount, it is unlikely to be what the jury just decided. And even if it is what the jury just decided, Jones' company is already "bankrupt" (yet still on the air) and he will almost certainly avoid liability through all the useful tools and entities available to a person who has hundreds of millions of dollars in the first place. And through all this, he will probably remain on the air spouting his lies - as he is literally right now as I write this post. In sum, it's good to know that we're trying to hold him to account, but it seems unlikely that this stops him in any material way from just continuing on the way he has been. Our system is not setup for situations that involve faith as bad as Jones', on the part of people who have not themselves committed an obvious violent crime.
  • tptacek 4y ago
    Remarkably, I think this is all economic damages --- they haven't reached the punitive damages phase. Furthermore, Connecticut doesn't have caps on compensatory damage for emotional distress. So this isn't quite like the Texas situation, where Jones attorneys successfully convinced the jury to award relatively small compensatory damages and large punitive damages --- those Texas punitive damages will get knocked way back, because there are local and federal caps on the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.
    • ivraatiems 4y ago
      I know your latter statement is true. Not sure about the former but IANAL. I do know attorney's fees are coming next. Still, I think the odds he actually is forced to pay almost any of this are vanishingly small.
      • tptacek 4y ago
        I'm less certain. It looks like this mostly hinges on the bankruptcy filings, which weren't going great for Jones (as, of course, they should not, as they seem pretty bogus).
• belval 4y ago
  So how were the damage calculated? I get that this guy is a nutjob but how can saying something is a hoax get you a 1B fine?
  • dvngnt_ 4y ago
    probably because his fans was harassing them even after they moved
  • serioussecurity 4y ago
    Punitive damages were a large fraction of the award.
    • tptacek 4y ago
      Are you sure about that? The jury recommended punitive damages, but as I understand it, in Connecticut the judge decides the punitive damage amounts in a later trial phase. I think today's number includes no punitive damages.
      • cjohnson318 4y ago
        And oh boy has he not been cooperative with the judge so far.
    • gnopgnip 4y ago
      The $965m is entirely economic damages. Punitive damages will be added later
      • Cyberdog 4y ago
        If that's true, I'd love to see how exactly they calculated that.
        • shagie 4y ago
          The breakdown of the damages - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/us/politics/alex-jones-damages.html?unlocked_article_code=aWQWThgc7xsEoP9Gnnwx-lyofZKYF9UOWfzDJrIbXu1LB5JUR7sDGKaysm2kMhBVsqbBnTzJGAcgqpg0XNudely7gnnXniEPe4NwhUiDld5sTbEAqyH5Y3WwJowS767Acm7fG6-jdVzhqE3qDi-kU3Hh4yEP9Jf6PHztYGDnS4Jc2KxWDd3OdHPAV-XmKooqZ1zbqh0svua2LaHTpUgDDM3hxK4iBcGoXdzMEy19IZY9y3VrlUq6VlS7WokmkB0J1AZu0zwJtonhsIdDUTkrmFnYXHlX_XI5QG11Jcr1oo5GZkMEmBXCuLpj49mzipyVeJOOqCrPkmyCvYVxlviTGw&smid=share-url https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/us/politics/alex-jones-da...
• tootie 4y ago
  I'm sure that will get reduced by the judge based on whatever state law, but it's a huge signal to Jones that he's an absolute monster.
  • diydsp 4y ago
    To him it's an achievement that confirms what he's been blathering abt for 20 years. But hopefully it will disincentivize others.
  • klyrs 4y ago
    > it's a huge signal to Jones that he's an absolute monster. I'd predict that he's going to flaunt the enormity if this penalty, and his fans will lap it up.
    • Arrath 4y ago
      He is, in fact, live-flaunting the verdict on his stream at this very moment.
      • klyrs 4y ago
        ugh, I hate being right
    • saltminer 4y ago
      Considering how they used a clip from the trial talking about Jones' crypto "donations" for an ad to get viewers to send more crypto, I'm sure the verdict will be incorporated into future ad breaks as well.
  • wyager 4y ago
    The decisions of the courts are, by a wide margin, much more influenced by one's relationship with the regime than by one's relationship with morality.
    • tootie 4y ago
      You think Joe Biden influenced the jury? I guess it's worse position than having a president who was a praiseful guest on your show.
• Overtonwindow 4y ago
  I think that is grossly excessive.
  • TigeriusKirk 4y ago
    Despite my strong belief that he be strongly punished for his lies, I agree with you. It's so over the top that it discredits the whole process for me.
    • AlexandrB 4y ago
      I think you should look at the theatrics Alex engaged in during the trial as well as his repeated failure to provide documents during discovery. He was arguably incompetently represented[1] (Infowars is probably going to sue their lawyer[2]) while treating the trial(s) as both a joke or a conspiracy against him. With that kind of behaviour, I'm not sure what kind of outcome he expected - him and his legal team failed to mount a serious defence of his actions. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-accidentally-leak-years-emails-infowars-financial-d-rcna41378 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-acci... [2] https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/alex-jones-turning-own-lawyers-085036428.html https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/alex-jones-turning-own-lawyers-0...
      • TigeriusKirk 4y ago
        I am explicitly not siding with Alex Jones in any way.
        • AlexandrB 4y ago
          Not saying that you are. But if Alex tried to make a mockery of the litigation he was facing why is the outcome disproportionate in your opinion? Didn't he undermine the process with his own actions here?
          • entiex 4y ago
            They're compensatory damages, not puntive damages. His trial behavior should be completely irrelevant, as should his level of wealth for that matter.
• bruceb 4y ago
  This title is so misleading, "to pay" and "told to pay" are not remotely the same. There is no chance Alex Jones will pay this amount. Actual headline is: Alex Jones told to pay $965m damages to Sandy Hook victims' families @dang pls fix.
  • bartread 4y ago
    This is the problem with BBC Breaking News: headlines can change. "Alex Jones to pay $965M to Sandy Hook victims" was the actual headline when I submitted, but it's now been amended to "Alex Jones told to pay $965m damages to Sandy Hook victims' families". I literally copy and pasted the original, unedited, into the "title" field on the submission page, but there's no way for me to update it to reflect the BBC's amended headline. In an ideal world the title field would auto-populate from the page title, which would (at least mostly) work fine on BBC News because they're pretty disciplined about keeping page titles and rendered titles on the page in sync. But we don't live in an ideal world: not all sites do that, and there's no hard requirement for them to do so. Plenty will, for example, SEO the heck out of the page title such that it doesn't match the title rendered in the page. You wouldn't want to use the page title as the HN title in these cases. So we're left with the current situation where an article's title can be updated, but the title on HN isn't. Can't really blame either HN or article submitters for that.
  • bdcravens 4y ago
    Articles report on fines, salaries, etc all the time, often with an element of payment in the future. "Facebook fined..." and "Facebook told to pay a fine..." have little difference, and I don't see many arguing the semantics of those articles.
    • nikanj 4y ago
      The difference is, Facebook would probably pay the fine. Alex Jones probably won’t
      • nimonian 4y ago
        That may be a difference but it is not the point. The semantics of the headlines are being discussed, not the particulars.
• budder 4y ago
  • _kbh_ 4y ago
    > I wish I lived in a world where it was legal to say whatever you wanted. You do, your just mixing up freedom of speech with having no consequences for your speech. You can say whatever you want, you just may get sued if you end up causing people damages.
  • jimcavel888 4y ago
  • sterlind 4y ago
    Jones stated that the Sandy Hook victims were crisis actors. he knew that to be false. it was an egregious case of defamation. knowingly spreading lies that damage someone's reputation is called slander, and it's not protected by the first amendment. neither is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or committing perjury, or falsifying your income taxes.
    • donatj 4y ago
      • lokar 4y ago
        We have a system for that. Juries decide.
        • donatj 4y ago
          Juries are not mind readers. At best you can get to roughly what a rational person would have thought given said data, Alex Jones is not rational. It is literally unknowable.
          • lokar 4y ago
• jimcavel888 4y ago
• saltminer 4y ago
  As someone who's been closely following the Infowars/Free Speech Systems trials (watched all the depos, trial footage, etc.), all I can say is that I'm glad these families are finally getting justice. Even though I'm sure it'll be tied up in appeals for awhile (and reduced on appeal), hopefully it'll prevent future harassment campaigns against families when tragedies occur. And before anyone says "but why wasn't Jones given a trial to determine his guilt? The first amendment is under attack!", Infowars has repeatedly failed to prepare its employees for depositions, refused to respond to discovery requests, and has perjured itself numerous times. The default judgements received in both this and the Texas cases were well deserved, and anyone with a less explosive personality and media presence would have been given far fewer chances to comply.
  • Taniwha 4y ago
    People keep saying "it couldn't happen to a nicer person" when it literally wouldn't happen to a nicer person
    • roganartu 4y ago
      “It couldn’t have happened to a nicer person” and other variations are usually used in a facetious manner. Basically, it’s sarcasm. The people using this turn of phrase are effectively saying “good, he deserves it for being a bad person”.
      • tptacek 4y ago
        Yes, the comment here is noting the irony of how those words apply differently here.
        • Taniwha 4y ago
          yes, I'm a native english speaker, I was pointing out exactly that
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• miked85 4y ago
  He will never possibly be able to pay this amount. It's just theater and will never happen.
  • toss1 4y ago
    He may not pay that amount, but he will spend the rest of his life bankrupt or spending most of his energy avoiding judgement, which is a not unreasonable fate for people who make a living lying, cheating, and stealing.
    • miked85 4y ago
      • 83 4y ago
        The first amendment is not a free pass to say statements that are dangerous or harmful to others.
      • tptacek 4y ago
        The framers of the First Amendment understood and accepted the tort of defamation.
        • nilespotter 4y ago
          Yes indeed. They would have been very pleased with someone being charged 1 billion dollars for saying that a single event didn't happen. Clearly they would have agreed that Jones is liable for the actions of his viewers. It's all right there in the founding documents.
          • tptacek 4y ago
            Defamation law at the time of the framers was even harsher than it is today. Truth wasn't a defense, and there was no "actual malice" standard. You were as likely to be arrested and imprisoned for these kinds of statements as you were to be sued for damages. The founders would have been fine with this outcome.
• colesantiago 4y ago
  • jagger27 4y ago
    Is a billion not enough?
    • colesantiago 4y ago
      Absolutely not, it should be $1BN for every year InforWars has been in operation.
      • wyager 4y ago
        Do you understand that the amount of the damages has zero practical bearing past a number much smaller than $1B?
        • colesantiago 4y ago
          I don't care. The amount of irreversible damage and suffering that man has caused with his company and his total fake news goes far beyond the Sandy Hook victims. I only wish more generational bankruptcy for him with everything he has caused.
• AdmiralAsshat 4y ago
  And yet I'm reasonably confident he'll exercise some legal maneuver to avoid paying even 1% of it, and will continue to live out the rest of his life in comfort.
• GamerUncle 4y ago
  This is more than the amount that people that lied about WDM's in the middle East were ever fined with. Consider they killed millions. Please know that I am not siding with Jones but this is ludicrous.
  • Consultant32452 4y ago
    If you lie in a way that lets the government ruthlessly murder millions you get promotions and a cushy pension.
  • commandlinefan 4y ago
    It does seem based far less on his actions than on their personal opinion of him. That ought to make everybody nervous.
    • salt-thrower 4y ago
      If you follow the trial at all, you'll see that this was not just "he said a bad thing one time and people are mad at him." He has a strongly demonstrated pattern of lies, perjury, obstruction of the legal process, and encouraging harassment against the Sandy Hook families. Most of the people saying "everyone should be afraid of this" are arguing in bad faith.
      • entiex 4y ago
        but absolutely none of that, save the encouragement of harassment, has any bearing on what the victims suffered from the behavior the lawsuit is fundamentally about. These damages are, supposedly, compensatory, and so the only relevant factor is supposed to be what the victims actually suffered.
        • salt-thrower 4y ago
          Forgive me for wondering whether an account created 27 minutes ago is arguing in good faith on a topic that frequently gets brigaded by FUD trolling. An actual lawyer will have to weigh in on whether this fits the damages awarded in similar cases.
• imwillofficial 4y ago
• mav88 4y ago
  • p1necone 4y ago
• raydiatian 4y ago
  OJones
• P0l83q4p1Hw3Ul 4y ago
  Why not $965B?
  • Ekaros 4y ago
    Or 965 trillion, make him pay for all the debt...
• donatj 4y ago
  • diydsp 4y ago
    >Calling someone a "crisis actor" is like saying they are from Mars and have 3 arms. No reasonable person is going to believe it. I've had to counter that argument from many of my high school classmates on facebook. They repeat these statements like sheep from Animal Farm.
  • CRWW 4y ago
    So the extraordinary amount of harassment the families received as a result of the crap he was spewing is completely meaningless? Sure no reasonable person is going to believe it but there are a lot of gullible idiots that eat up everything he says. Really easy to say you could shrug it off when your family wasn't just murdered.
  • Zigurd 4y ago
    Alex Jones did a lot more than that. His defaming the families of dead kids resulted in his followers and supporters harassing those people. The harassers need to be held civilly and criminally liable, too. But Jones persisted over years in encouraging this harassment.
    • edmundsauto 4y ago
      While profiting from it and knowing he was lying.
    • donatj 4y ago
      > encouraging this harassment Did he actually encourage people to harass them? I haven't heard anything of that, because that changes the story if true.
  • dfcowell 4y ago
    Jones has a rabid following who engaged in a campaign of stalking and harassment - including death threats and harassment by mail to their homes - against the plaintiffs. It went quite a bit beyond one guy saying some mean things. I think you’d probably find that harder to shrug off.
• Taniwha 4y ago
  "CIVIL-RIGHTS LAWYER NARRATOR: But punitive-damages awards aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy. So Alex Jones will be paying off these debts from wage garnishments, attachments, & sheriff’s sales of his stuff for the rest of his wretched, pathetic, worthless life." from: https://twitter.com/SubodhChandra/status/1580285453348921344 https://twitter.com/SubodhChandra/status/1580285453348921344
  • tptacek 4y ago
    These aren't punitive damages, though the bankruptcy code cite there seems really to be about damages from any intentional tort. My understanding --- someone has been following this part of the case more closely than me and can correct --- is that the bankruptcy stuff isn't as much about shielding Jones or Free Speech Systems directly as it is about facilitating moving most/all of Jones and FSS's assets off their books.
  • donatj 4y ago
    Honest question - could Jones sue Subodh Chandra for defamation given that his life was just valued at at least a billion dollars by a jury?
    • Taniwha 4y ago
      Pretty sure it was the jury that decided that
    • Hamuko 4y ago
      Pretty sure his life wasn't just valued at a billion dollars, but rather the amount of damage he has caused. But I'll be generous and give that lawsuit a 0.01% chance.
    • advisedwang 4y ago
      Anyone can sue anyone. But he'd lose.
    • tedunangst 4y ago
      Worthless life is clearly opinion.
• fareesh 4y ago
  This is a good verdict - defamation in the media is a very serious problem. It's unfortunate that it took a person like Alex Jones to convince people of it. If anything he should not be taken seriously. Those who are taken seriously have gotten away with much worse by merely apologizing or correcting themselves (as he did as well). As for the amount - the highest fine paid by Wall Street firms for the 2008 crisis was less than $100M. One of those numbers is unjust for sure.
  • AlexandrB 4y ago
    I think there's a strong case that Alex's apologies were not genuine nor would result in changes in future behavior on air. Even as the first trial was wrapping up Alex was calling one of the plaintiffs "slow" and "manipulated by some very bad people."[1] [1] https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-railed-against-sandy-193648724.html https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-railed-against-sandy-19364...
    • mejari 4y ago
      In fact he was just doing his show, showing the verdict being read, and mocking the father of one of the slain children's reaction. I can think of no stronger proof that any apologies given were not genuine.
• tareqak 4y ago
  Key moments from Alex Jones defamation trial (5m 17s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JepMo2y7Zek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JepMo2y7Zek
  • senectus1 4y ago
    this is a mix up of both cases. but yeah "low lights" not so much high lights. disgusting individual, or very broken.
• jl6 4y ago
  His lies encouraged harassment and death threats. Did they ever fine / jail those doing the harassment and death threats?
  • tptacek 4y ago
    It's unlikely any of them will be sued civilly, as Jones was, because they for the most part weren't running successful businesses that profited by deliberately defaming the parents of shooting victims.
  • PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    Some comments above claimed that indeed some people faced criminal charges for their actions.
• stuckinhell 4y ago
  • rajup 4y ago
    The courts determined there was no “truth” whatsoever in what Alex jones spouts in his bouts of verbal diarrhea.
  • tptacek 4y ago
    Jones runs a 9-figure media and supplements business that misappropriated and sold the memories of 20 children and the reputations of their parents to boost his numbers, and then refused to participate in the trial that established his culpability. He might be the least sympathetic corporate defendant in US history. Even the tobacco CEOs could reason that the science was overblown, and that the companies were protecting tens of thousands of jobs.
    • guywithahat 4y ago
      The biggest numbers I've seen were 8 figures (Rolling Stones published something suggesting 160 million over 3 years, while he was still on YouTube at his peak, which is 53 million a year), and that was for total revenue which to my understanding is debated as being too high. Jones himself is probably worth less than 10 million especially considering his share of InfoWars is now worthless
      • tptacek 4y ago
        That seems unlikely, since Jones own bankruptcy filings show withdrawals from FSS in the high 8 figures.
        • _-david-_ 4y ago
          Is that revenue or profit though? Withdrawing a lot of money doesn't mean anything if it is being spent on product and other costs.
• mynameishere 4y ago
  The more I think about it, the less concerned I am that there's one less controlled oppo nutcase out there. His Sandy Hook stuff was so stupid and unhelpful that it just had to be an act similar to the old Phelps "GOD HATES [insert any group here]" people of yesteryear. The problem of course, is that lies (in the technical sense) are pretty common and often much more damaging that this fluff up. There's a lot of billions that could change hands if the lawsuits all went up at once. But really, they won't all go up at once--it will be the political undesirables only.
• glonq 4y ago
  I don't want to live in a world where Alex Jones has access to a billion dollars. But TBH I don't really want to live in a world when Alex Jones exists at all.
  • mdp2021 4y ago
    > exists The issue is not with exceptions (every village is entitled to having a fool), but with the trend of large amounts of people giving them credit. Especially in a wave of mounting relativism trying to "soften the distance between lunacy and truth".
    • glonq 4y ago
      > the trend of large amounts of people giving them credit Agreed. Screw that neanderthal dummy Joe Rogan for giving credibility to Alex Jones.
• aschearer 4y ago
  • tptacek 4y ago
    (a) Stuff like this is supremely unhelpful and corrosive to the thread. (b) It's obviously not the case that Jones is getting a sympathetic hearing from this thread; instead, you're noticing mostly the randos posting pro-Jones stuff that lives briefly before being flagged to the bottom of the site.
    • lovich 4y ago
      I think the poster has misidentified most people defending Jones in this thread as fans when they are more likely free speech absolutists who believe any government sanctioned consequence for speech is immoral. They’d likely defend anyone who received a punishment for this type of behavior, Alex Jones just happens to be the man of the hour
      • p1necone 4y ago
        I am yet to see a "free speech absolutist" defend anyone on the left (where's the outrage about Republican school districts banning books?). It just seems to be a convenient excuse for being friendly with fascists.
        • lovich 4y ago
          You’ve got a fair point although I will play devils advocate at you can find them occasionally in deep corners of the internet like /r/libertarianUncensored, and even there they aren’t the majority
        • 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
          I haven't heard of that - could you describe the books being removed from schools? Are they still teaching books like 1984, Brave New World and Animal Farm?
• animitronix 4y ago
  Boom, he's on his back!
• norwalkbear 4y ago
  Does he even have the money to pay nearly a billion dollars? Or is the point to bankrupt him with what seems like lawfare? America is not a place where people like being told to be quiet. Alex Jones went mainstream on the Joe Rogan show. Millions and millions of Rogan fans see Alex Jones are legitimized by this ruling. Joe Rogan has the biggest podcast in the world. Just some things to think about. Unintended consequences.
  • tptacek 4y ago
    Those consequences being what, more people defaming the parents of dead children and losing their fortunes as a result? I don't think Rogan is dumb enough to make that particular mistake.
    • norwalkbear 4y ago
      That's a very uncharitable interpretation. Whether you like it or not, Alex Jones is insanely popular and so is Joe Rogan. Their audiences votes and can certainly tip elections. I bet you never thought Trump would win in 2016. I knew that race would be close because I understand the mood of average Americans better than you.
      • lovich 4y ago
        What are you implying then? That if someone gets popular enough we should all just roll over and let them do as they please? I’m failing to see a different interpretation when you end with > Just some things to think about. Unintended consequences.
        • norwalkbear 4y ago
          Fining him nearly 1 billion dollars is excessive and sends a wrong moral signal to the moderate public. It makes the punishment look unusual and petty. Can anyone justify why the amount should be that high? Does he have 1 billion dollars? I would have fined him 200million something he might actually have. Using the law to make an example out of someone requires moral authority and the population to agree. COVID has shown us, America is split on that.
• z7 4y ago
  Whenever X happens there will always be people who believe X didn't happen. Society has to find a way to deal with this.
• anigbrowl 4y ago
  Bad headline. The jury ordered Jones to pay this; the headline as written suggests he made a commitment to do so, which is untrue (he plans to appeal). 'Alex Jones must pay' or 'Alex Jones ordered to pay' would be more meaningful.
  • mdp2021 4y ago
    It is much simpler: one is expected to just copy the original unless there are very valid reasons to edit it... Edit: the submitter explained - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33183697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33183697 - that the original title at the time of submission is the given one; the target news agency then edited the page. Oh well - some possibility for which we must take a mental note.
    • anigbrowl 4y ago
      I believe the person did so but then the BBC edited their own headline later.
  • kevstev 4y ago
    This is the third comment in this thread along these lines- Isn't this just splitting hairs? Is there any significant percentage of defendants in such cases that have judgements like this against them that don't actually appeal and just write a check on the spot? I am asking honestly here- I am not sure if this is just typical engineer type "well actually..." type stuff going on, or if some attempt to downplay and discredit the judgement.
    • anigbrowl 4y ago
      No, it's just the semantic ambiguity. I think more people should rewrite HN headlines for clarity when they're confusing (in this case, the BBC subsequently changed the headline but it doesn't auto-update on HN).
• alexnewman 4y ago
  Stupid question, why not 1 trillion? Is it dischargeable in bankruptcy? I assume he won’t even get close to 1B. Figure it gets cut to 500M in appeals, and he doesn’t make 100M in his lifetime. What happens? I believe The largest fine paid by a banking executive responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis was $67.5 million
  • toomanyrichies 4y ago
    > he doesn’t make 100M in his lifetime. Infowars made $165 million in 3 years [1]. 1. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/alex-jones-infowars-store-165-million-1281059/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/alex-jon...
    • alexnewman 4y ago
      Revenue or profit? It’s unclear. If it’s revenue, at 10% margin, I’d guess he’s close to broke after expenses.
      • thwayunion 4y ago
        > at 10% margin Even legacy media manages 20%-40% margins; an outfit like InfoWars can probably get way over 50%. What exactly are their expenses?
        • derac 4y ago
          It's from the infowars store, they produce the products. No clue what the figure actually is, but he does have a ton of money.
          • alexnewman 4y ago
            Didn't he just declare bankcupcy?
        • alexnewman 4y ago
          This is extremely misleading. Legacy media sells ads. Infowars sells products.
• Pxtl 4y ago
  To the free speech purists in this thread, I have a hypothetical I'm curious about: What if it happened to you? Let's imagine that a media source with millions of viewers - like a local news channel, for example, or a radio show, went live with a story that had specific and false allegations that you did something odious. Like they said you were a cannibal or a pedophile or something like that. And as a result, you were faced with a campaign of harassment and threats by fans of this source. If people googled your name, "Cannibal" was the top hit. And they made millions of dollars from these allegations. What would your recourse be?
  • swordfish69 4y ago
    What if you performed simple public records requests and realized that this whole event stinks to high heaven and that it was immediately politicized by politicians and billionaire media elites to suppress the rights of American citizens? There always has to be room to question events that dominate the news cycle.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • nobody9999 4y ago
      >What if you performed simple public records requests and realized that this whole event stinks to high heaven and that it was immediately politicized by politicians and billionaire media elites to suppress the rights of American citizens? Are you claiming to have done so? If that's the case, what were the results of your "public records requests"? What rights have been suppressed? Please do tell.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • ncallaway 4y ago
      Please be specific what public records requests you've done, and how they demonstrated that this whole event stinks to high heaven. What records have you reviewed?
• fairity 4y ago
  People gawking at the magnitude of the fine are perhaps underestimating the scale of profit being generated from the enterprise in question. To be clear, I'm not sure one way or the other, but I'd keep an open mind to the possibility that it's actually possible to collect a large fraction of this penalty.
• sdtriton 4y ago
  The people who released opioids upon the American public didn't get fines like this. Insane
  • sneak 4y ago
    Cigarettes kill 7x as many as opiates in the USA every hour, day, week, month, and year. Those companies aren't even fined or put behind a prescription-wall.
    • permo-w 4y ago
      that is true but they also aren't allowed to advertise, have massive additional taxes placed on them, and huge public information campaigns against their use
    • zimpenfish 4y ago
      Adding some numbers: [1] gives ~480k cigarette deaths, [2] gives 107k drug deaths with ~80k of those from opiods which is an approx 6:1 ratio (close enough!) [1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/202205.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/...
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • anigbrowl 4y ago
      This is uninformed. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement has cost the tobacco industry north of $200 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...
      • 93po 4y ago
        So that money gets paid to the states to cover medical costs related to smoking? Is there any documentation of people getting free healthcare for their smoking related illnesses? I sure as heck haven't ever heard of this.
• Jordrok 4y ago
• chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Alex Jones to pay $965M to Sandy Hook victims There is absolutely no way this is going to happen. The BBC are delusional.
  • CyberDildonics 4y ago
    You understand that they're reporting the news and not predicting the future right?
    • chrisseaton 4y ago
      > You understand that they're reporting the news and not predicting the future right? No they’ve done the opposite of that here - saying he will pay is predicting the future (badly). Saying he’s been told to pay would have been reporting the news. (The headline has been changed if you weren’t aware, so they must agree it was wrong.)
      • Rapzid 4y ago
        Or just that the new headline is better. Honestly "to pay" would, colloquially, mean "judged against at this dollar amount" given existing context of a pending judgement. The phrase is frequently in these situations.
      • CyberDildonics 4y ago
        Not sure if english is your first language, but the BBC is a news organization and here they are just repeating the verdict of the case.
• pdpi 4y ago
  The jury in the Texas case awarded the family around $50M, and the $965M in this case is a bit over 2x that, at $120M per family. So it's definitely a lot higher and I'm curious to see if there's anything that caused that. More importantly, though, is that the Texas damages were split into ~$4.5M as compensatory damages (this is the part where you make amends for the harm you've caused), and the remaining ~$45M as punitive damages (the part where you). Texas has a cap on how much you can _actually_ be forced to pay in punitive damages, and it is specifically forbidden to instruct juries on the existence of this cap, so as to avoid tempting the jury to tack their actual punitive damages onto the compensatory damages number. The amount in this case will almost certainly going to have a similar-ish split, and Connecticut is likely to have similar-ish laws in place. I'm not sure how this all works, but there's also the interesting detail that, if this was just one judgment, the punitive damages cap might apply to the aggregate amount rather than per plaintiff (So: if there is a $1M cap, does that mean he pays no more than $1M, so each family gets $125k, or each family can't get more than $1M, and he pays $8M).
  • jbrr 4y ago
    > Connecticut is likely to have similar-ish laws in place NAL, but according to the New York Times, this doesn’t appear to be the case. > This case presented the greatest financial risk to Mr. Jones, because he was found liable of violating Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, by using lies about the shooting to sell products on Infowars. There is no cap on punitive damages under that law. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/10/12/us/alex-jones-verdict-sandy-hook https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/10/12/us/alex-jones-verdic...
  • tptacek 4y ago
    No. In the Texas case, Jones lawyers successfully convinced the jury to award relatively low compensatory damages and to hammer him, if that's what they wanted, in the punitive damages phase. In Connecticut, Jones lawyers failed catastrophically to accomplish the same thing. The entire $965MM in this case is compensatory; we haven't reached punitive damages yet. Notably, the torts involved in this case don't appear to have capped damages in Connecticut. (I have no particular reason to believe this verdict will stand unchanged, but whatever happens to knock the damages down, it will be something very different than what happens in Texas, where state and federal law caps punitive damages in relation to the underlying compensatory damages). The other obvious difference between this case and Texas is that there are many more plaintiffs here.
• maest 4y ago
  One surprising thing (at least for me) that I don't see anyone talking about in the comments is: I had no idea Alex Jones had that much money. That's 1 billion dollars in damages.
  • bogwog 4y ago
    Peddling conspiracy theories on the internet to gullible idiots is very profitable.
  • anigbrowl 4y ago
    Infowars is wildly profitable. Financial records in a previous trial revealed that their revenue was sometimes as much as $800,000/day. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/us/alex-jones-finances.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/us/alex-jones-finances.ht...
    • BonoboIO 4y ago
      Wow ... and all with lies.
  • ncallaway 4y ago
    Damages are not about how much money you have. It's about how much damage you've caused. It would not be hard for me to go out into the world and cause more damage that I can afford to repay. I don't think Alex Jones has that much money.
• mdp2021 4y ago
  Can somebody explain the statement from the lawyer, as reported by Axios: > «We disagree with the basis of the default, we disagree with the court’s evidentiary rulings. In more than 200 trials in the course of my career I have never seen a trial like this», Pattis added. «Today is a very, very dark day for freedom of speech» given that another bullet states > claimed the shooting was a "false flag" operation planned by the government using "crisis actors" to undermine gun rights which gives very little space for interpretation.
  • tedunangst 4y ago
    His lawyer is not very good.
  • rglover 4y ago
    It's a statement of opinion which perfectly fits under the guise of free speech. I can claim that McDonald's hamburgers are made of cat meat to lower prices and it's the exact same thing. It's only because it's political (and Jones is a perennial example to be paraded about as the standard for "evil far-right conservative extremist" thought) that it gets contorted into what it has. This will predictably bite people in the cheeks later when this case is used as pretense for going after someone those chastising Jones agree with.
    • tptacek 4y ago
      No. If you built a multimillion-dollar media enterprise and used it to state that you had actual knowledge that McDonalds used cat meat in their Quarter Pounders, McDonalds would likely end up owning your media enterprise, and might also erect a PlayPlace(tm) on the ground your house stood on. We just saw this happen to Oberlin a few weeks ago: you can do tens of millions of dollars of damage by materially misstating facts, and "McDonalds Quarter Pounders Meow Instead Of Moo" is a statement of fact, not opinion. (The numbers in the Oberlin case also flatly refute your argument as well; there, a conservative-friendly plaintiff won a number comparable to what the Sandy Hook parents won here. The big distinction is that there were many more Sandy Hook parents than there were defamed Oberlin candy store owners.)
• kornhole 4y ago
• prvc 4y ago
  My heart goes out to all these people who I've never heard of who suffered $1B in damage to their reputations.
• MarcoZavala 4y ago
• incahoots 4y ago
  I'm curious if this decision will play any part in the current defamation suit between News Corp and Dominion.
• dolfine 4y ago
  Now let’s sue every politician and newscaster who defamed Trump
  • Ekaros 4y ago
    Or anyone who called anyone not member of National Socialist party nazi, I think that should be at least a billion a pop if not more.
• unknownaccount 4y ago
• dolfine 4y ago
• paganel 4y ago
  Blatantly copying from Twitter [1], but it's what I believe, also: > The largest fine paid by a banking executive responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis was $67.5 million A few tens of millions would have set straight almost everyone involved, the victims getting their money, Jones having to pay out of his pocket. But $1 billion means Jones will never be able to pay the sum, and, what's more, it will also silence him indefinitely. Which will make lots of his supporters think that was the intention all along, and in so doing making a mockery out of the act of justice. [1] https://twitter.com/WSBChairman/status/1580289631714947072 https://twitter.com/WSBChairman/status/1580289631714947072
  • greedo 4y ago
    Interesting and brave take to defend a real scumbag.
    • dolfine 4y ago
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • danans 4y ago
    > But $1 billion means Jones will never be able to pay the sum, and, what's more, it will also silence him indefinitely. How does it do that? You don't need billions or even millions to practice your free speech rights. Jones still has a website with a huge reader/viewership last I checked, which is far more reach than he'd have using the last backstop platform of free speech: literally speaking standing on a box in the town square. Many people like him who have been demonetized on mainstream platforms because of content policy violations continue to operate with the financing of wealthy private donors who share their beliefs and agendas. Furthermore, there are plenty of media companies that would probably hire him as a paid commentator or to host an entertainment show where he continues to talk about the subjects over which he isn't being sued for defamation. They would probably pay him well enough to pay these damages for years to come and still live a comfortable life. He can also keep selling his dietary supplements to his audience who seem to believe in their efficacy. He just can't slander the Sandy Hook families anymore without fear of financial repercussions.
• betwixthewires 4y ago
  I'm not a fan of the guy, I think he's a two bit boner pill salesman, but I find it interesting, this is much higher than most SEC, FTC and FCC fines of big multinationals. Even bigger ones, like Purdue pharma, paid over 5 billion, but killed and addicted hundreds of thousands to a few million people, I'd argue that's more than 5x worse than this. Seems the government likes to be soft on their buddies and excessively hard on their critics and this is no exception to that.
  • ncallaway 4y ago
    This wasn't an action brought by the government. He wasn't sued by the SEC, the FTC, or the FCC. He was sued by the parents that he defamed repeatedly over years.
    • betwixthewires 4y ago
      That makes it even worse. Defraud or harm the entire country and you pay less than defaming a handful of people. He deserves to pay them for causing them trouble for his own gain, but if this isn't a political example I don't know what is.
      • derac 4y ago
        The judgement was decided by jury...
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
      • pixl97 4y ago
        This is because of your ignorance of the courtroom process with a jury... When those large companies go in front of a jury they are respectful, they don't act like assholes to the jurors, they defend their positions well, they avoid making the jurors hate them. Jones did none of the above. He did, seemingly, everything possible to bias the jury against him. This is the pinnacle of arrogance and stupidity.
• dolfine 4y ago
• holyknight 4y ago
  Does he even have that kind of money?
• holyknight 4y ago
  does he even have that kind of money?
• jpttsn 4y ago
  Curious: What kind of tax would I pay in the US if I became a multimillionaire off compensation for my damaged reputation? Also, could I make a deduction for my damaged reputation based on this sort of calculation/figure?
  • thwayunion 4y ago
    The advice I received was as follows: for tax planning and personal budgeting purposes, start from the assumption that the entire settlement/award will be taxed as income. When you receive the check, set aside city+state+fed taxes at your highest tax bracket. If the award is big enough to justify it, talk with an expert since portions may not be taxable either federally or in some states. If the amount is too small to justify paying an accountant (mine was), probably better to simply treat it as income on your taxes.
• andrewclunn 4y ago
  • Jordrok 4y ago
    Imagine waxing this poetic over an irredeemable piece of shit like Alex Jones.
• pseingatl 4y ago
  Bad reporting. This is symbolic only. The judgment is unsecured, uncollectable and unlike even a $500 student loan debt, dischargeable in bankruptcy. Unlikely that the judgment creditors will ever see a dime--and someone has to pay for collection efforts on an hourly basis. Because that's how the US justice system™ works.
  • tptacek 4y ago
    This judgement is not in fact dischargeable in bankruptcy.
• imwillofficial 4y ago
  Purdue was recently ordered to pay 600 million for their role in getting large swaths of America addicted to Oxy. Alex Jones just got ordered to pay nearly a billion for playing a character on an online TV show. Let that sink in. Love em or hate em, a billion dollars is absurd.
• Ekaros 4y ago
  Just goes to show how insanely corrupt and broken the justice system in USA is. That sort of money has in no way anything to do with reality.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• tb_technical 4y ago
  Interesting tidbit: Alex Jones was fined more money (for this Sandy Hook case) than Purdue Pharma's role in the opioid crisis.
  • thwayunion 4y ago
    Today I learned that $1 billion is more than $6 billion...? /s
    • tb_technical 4y ago
      Perdue was fined 634.5 million USD, actually.
      • thwayunion 4y ago
        A quick Google search confirms the ~$6B number, and as a lower bound. When the facts are this easy to find and you repeat wildly false information, you're not simply mistaken, you are intentionally lying. Why do you feel the need to lie about this? Why are you so desperate to deny an obvious truth? Good men don't lie. "Attorney General John M. Formella today announced a national settlement with Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sackler family, for their role in the opioid crisis, that will increase the amount of funds paid by the Sacklers from $4.325 billion under the original bankruptcy plan to at least $5.5 billion." https://www.doj.nh.gov/news/2022/20220303-settlement-purdue-pharma-sacklers.htm https://www.doj.nh.gov/news/2022/20220303-settlement-purdue-...
        • tb_technical 4y ago
          Actually, I didn't know about the recent case in 2020. I thought this all happened like ten years ago. Thanks for letting me know. Don't appreciate being called a liar, but that's the internet for ya.
• illuminerdy 4y ago
  If Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist that most rational people don't take seriously, which is how the media portrays him, how could what he have said possibly had such an effect on the public to warrant almost a billion dollars in compensation? This monetary verdict doesn't make sense in any way.
• hi41 4y ago
  Considering that America is such an advanced country mainly because of science and engineering, why is the american population so gullible as to believe the rantings of a madman. Even with a cursory glance one can easily say that Alex Jones is lying. This is so sad.