13 ms·

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 the

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]
samstave 4y ago
darth_avocado 4y ago
First amendment isn’t under attack. Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. Ge attacked people, they responded back. Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander. But a $965 million dollar judgment for libel or slander would have to be justified by comparable damages. That isn't the case here.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Sure it is. The jury literally just found those damages. These aren't punitive damages, they're compensatory. Punitive damages are the next phase of the case.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      I accept that the jury labeled the amount as compensatory damage. But it is obviously the case that that amount of damage was not dealt. Nobody involved had a reputation that was worth $100 million dollars.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        That's not obvious to me at all. Can a 9-figure media and supplements company inflict 25-50 million dollars on an individual? Sure they can. Selling the memory of a parent's murdered child and defaming them to the point where they are followed into different states by lunatics threatening their lives seems to easily cross that threshold. How disruptive would it be to my life if that happened to me? Over how many years? It's a huge amount of baseline injury, and then it's multiplied by the demonstrable profits earned by Free Speech Systems at their expense. Remember, it's almost a billion dollars because twenty children were murdered at Sandy Hook, and Jones' company managed to target all of the parents. If only one parent had sued, we wouldn't be batting an eyelash at the resulting damages. But Jones built an immensely powerful media machine, and then aimed it very carefully at his own testicles. Play stupid games, &c &c.
unknownaccount 4y ago
- HyperSane 4y ago
  They aren't independent actors because they were highly impressionable people whose actions were influenced by Jone's lies.
  - unknownaccount 4y ago
    This is what the erosion of personal responsibility and accountability looks like. Alex Jones isnt responsible if stupid impressionable people watch his show and do stupid things. That is absurd and absolutely chilling in regards to free speech. Perhaps it even sets a new precedent that everyone who posts a comment/video/podcast online is now responsible for any illegal actions that any of their viewer commit.
    - helf 4y ago
      Oh here we go… rolls eyes This is not “chilling to free speech”. Spewing hatred and demonstrably false utter bullshit and stirring up people knowingly is what he has and continues to do. Just like any number of other sociopathic fuckwits out there and through the ages. “Personal responsibility and accountability “ is exacty what he’s being held accountable for because /his/ actions, /his/ drivel, /his/ psychotic vitriol was /knowingly/, /willingly/, and /joyfully/ used to cause these problems. Your logic would dictate that no one is ever at fault for causing anything. It’s the dipshits who are dumb enough to go with them who are at fault. I mean, step back and listen to yourself for a moment. Unless you are too far gone you MIGHT recognize the absurdity of your views. I am so fucking tired of human trash like him, Glenn Beck, Joe Rogan, Trump, insert hundreds of other pieces of shit getting to do literally whatever they want because “personal accountability” dictates that what they said was just words and free speech and they aren’t at fault. Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.
      - unknownaccount 4y ago
conductr 4y ago
Up next, the financial crimes folks get to tell us all about how they hid all their assets so as to limit their actual losses
dukeofdoom 4y ago
The judge threatened to throw Alex in jail for saying he was innocent to the jury. You can't really get more dystopian than that. Imagine if that happened during your own trial, what would you do? Would you still want to testify. There were a few other things the judge barred him from saying during his testimony, yet the prosecution spent days talking about them. How is that even remotely fair. Ridiculous verdict from a ridiculous show trial. Kangaroos ashamed everywhere.
- tptacek 4y ago
  The concept you're upset with here is "the rules of evidence". You'll find that in a variety of ways, your freedom of expression is intensely curtailed in a court of law, and you cannot in fact make any argument you'd like. In particular, when you've lost a trial by deliberately defaulting it, you cannot re-raise the issues the trial settled in the damages phase of the trial. You lost, and those issues are now off the table. That's how trials work. People are Big Mad about the fact that Jones wasn't allowed to proclaim his ignorance on the stand. But I'm guessing that if you surveyed those people, fewer than 50% would be aware that he was tried and found liable already, and that the "trial" we're discussing is simply the damages phase of the trial he lost.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    Imagine being accused of murdering someone. You ask for a jury trial. The prosecution asks you to turn over the murder weapon. You plead that you don't have the murder weapon because you are innocent. The judge tells you you have 5 days to turn over all the knives you ever bought. You don't, because you don't know where some of them are. The judge doesn't believe you. The Dystopian Part: The Judge finds you guilty of murder by default, without hearing any evidence of your guilt, and denies you your jury trial, based on the justification that you did not turn over a couple of the knives. Guilt and Punishment: The judge proceeds to hold what amounts to a memorial service, as family member after family member is called up to the stand by the prosecution and they cry in front of the jury over their lost loved one. Your lawyer can't effectively question a crying family member as that makes them seem like a cruel psychopath. Should you take the stand in your defence, the judge threatens you and your lawyer with contempt, and by implication jail, if you go up there and say you're innocent. There's a list of things you're not allowed to talk about because they would imply your innocence. And you were already found guilty! Therefore, saying you're innocent would be perjury. You're only allowed to answer with "yes", "no" or "I don't know" when the prosecution calls you up to the stand. After they berate you for half a day, and your defence lawyer objects to the judge losing control, the judge ends the day by yelling at your lawyer that she won't stand for any nonsense from now on. That she hasn't found a lawyer in contempt in all her career, but she's ready to do it now. The next day is when you're supposed to testify in your defence. You decline to take the stand. Final Instructions: The judge tells the jury it isn't allowed to question or speculate on what basis you where found guilty, just that there are only here to determine your punishment. This is what I'm upset with. This was a political show trial, engineered for a specific verdict.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

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]

samstave 4y ago

darth_avocado 4y ago

First amendment isn’t under attack. Alex Jones isn’t being punished by the govt. Ge attacked people, they responded back. Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Defamation law has always existed and people can always sue you for libel and slander. But a $965 million dollar judgment for libel or slander would have to be justified by comparable damages. That isn't the case here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 4y ago
  Sure it is. The jury literally just found those damages. These aren't punitive damages, they're compensatory. Punitive damages are the next phase of the case.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    I accept that the jury labeled the amount as compensatory damage. But it is obviously the case that that amount of damage was not dealt. Nobody involved had a reputation that was worth $100 million dollars.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      That's not obvious to me at all. Can a 9-figure media and supplements company inflict 25-50 million dollars on an individual? Sure they can. Selling the memory of a parent's murdered child and defaming them to the point where they are followed into different states by lunatics threatening their lives seems to easily cross that threshold. How disruptive would it be to my life if that happened to me? Over how many years? It's a huge amount of baseline injury, and then it's multiplied by the demonstrable profits earned by Free Speech Systems at their expense. Remember, it's almost a billion dollars because twenty children were murdered at Sandy Hook, and Jones' company managed to target all of the parents. If only one parent had sued, we wouldn't be batting an eyelash at the resulting damages. But Jones built an immensely powerful media machine, and then aimed it very carefully at his own testicles. Play stupid games, &c &c.

unknownaccount 4y ago

HyperSane 4y ago
They aren't independent actors because they were highly impressionable people whose actions were influenced by Jone's lies.
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  This is what the erosion of personal responsibility and accountability looks like. Alex Jones isnt responsible if stupid impressionable people watch his show and do stupid things. That is absurd and absolutely chilling in regards to free speech. Perhaps it even sets a new precedent that everyone who posts a comment/video/podcast online is now responsible for any illegal actions that any of their viewer commit.
  - helf 4y ago
    Oh here we go… rolls eyes This is not “chilling to free speech”. Spewing hatred and demonstrably false utter bullshit and stirring up people knowingly is what he has and continues to do. Just like any number of other sociopathic fuckwits out there and through the ages. “Personal responsibility and accountability “ is exacty what he’s being held accountable for because /his/ actions, /his/ drivel, /his/ psychotic vitriol was /knowingly/, /willingly/, and /joyfully/ used to cause these problems. Your logic would dictate that no one is ever at fault for causing anything. It’s the dipshits who are dumb enough to go with them who are at fault. I mean, step back and listen to yourself for a moment. Unless you are too far gone you MIGHT recognize the absurdity of your views. I am so fucking tired of human trash like him, Glenn Beck, Joe Rogan, Trump, insert hundreds of other pieces of shit getting to do literally whatever they want because “personal accountability” dictates that what they said was just words and free speech and they aren’t at fault. Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.
    - unknownaccount 4y ago

conductr 4y ago

Up next, the financial crimes folks get to tell us all about how they hid all their assets so as to limit their actual losses

dukeofdoom 4y ago

The judge threatened to throw Alex in jail for saying he was innocent to the jury. You can't really get more dystopian than that. Imagine if that happened during your own trial, what would you do? Would you still want to testify. There were a few other things the judge barred him from saying during his testimony, yet the prosecution spent days talking about them. How is that even remotely fair. Ridiculous verdict from a ridiculous show trial. Kangaroos ashamed everywhere.

tptacek 4y ago
The concept you're upset with here is "the rules of evidence". You'll find that in a variety of ways, your freedom of expression is intensely curtailed in a court of law, and you cannot in fact make any argument you'd like. In particular, when you've lost a trial by deliberately defaulting it, you cannot re-raise the issues the trial settled in the damages phase of the trial. You lost, and those issues are now off the table. That's how trials work. People are Big Mad about the fact that Jones wasn't allowed to proclaim his ignorance on the stand. But I'm guessing that if you surveyed those people, fewer than 50% would be aware that he was tried and found liable already, and that the "trial" we're discussing is simply the damages phase of the trial he lost.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  Imagine being accused of murdering someone. You ask for a jury trial. The prosecution asks you to turn over the murder weapon. You plead that you don't have the murder weapon because you are innocent. The judge tells you you have 5 days to turn over all the knives you ever bought. You don't, because you don't know where some of them are. The judge doesn't believe you. The Dystopian Part: The Judge finds you guilty of murder by default, without hearing any evidence of your guilt, and denies you your jury trial, based on the justification that you did not turn over a couple of the knives. Guilt and Punishment: The judge proceeds to hold what amounts to a memorial service, as family member after family member is called up to the stand by the prosecution and they cry in front of the jury over their lost loved one. Your lawyer can't effectively question a crying family member as that makes them seem like a cruel psychopath. Should you take the stand in your defence, the judge threatens you and your lawyer with contempt, and by implication jail, if you go up there and say you're innocent. There's a list of things you're not allowed to talk about because they would imply your innocence. And you were already found guilty! Therefore, saying you're innocent would be perjury. You're only allowed to answer with "yes", "no" or "I don't know" when the prosecution calls you up to the stand. After they berate you for half a day, and your defence lawyer objects to the judge losing control, the judge ends the day by yelling at your lawyer that she won't stand for any nonsense from now on. That she hasn't found a lawyer in contempt in all her career, but she's ready to do it now. The next day is when you're supposed to testify in your defence. You decline to take the stand. Final Instructions: The judge tells the jury it isn't allowed to question or speculate on what basis you where found guilty, just that there are only here to determine your punishment. This is what I'm upset with. This was a political show trial, engineered for a specific verdict.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]