3 ms·

It was a civil case, so no government/prosecutor, and the jury awarded much more than plaintiffs asked for. EDIT: Also you can disagree with the amount, but th

It was a civil case, so no government/prosecutor, and the jury awarded much more than plaintiffs asked for. EDIT: Also you can disagree with the amount, but the award is literally the jury saying that the plaintiffs “prevailed with better arguments”

s1artibartfast 2y ago
That doesnt mean it was a reasonable amount.
- pohuing 2y ago
  No but it dispels the opening statement of gp about supposed dictatorial power.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Well, it moves the claim. Now the dictatorial power lies with the jury. The normal corrective for such a thing is to appeal the amount of the award, on the grounds that it is clearly unreasonable. For Alex Jones, it probably didn't matter - he was bankrupt either way, so the extreme amount of the award is just a middle finger from the jury, with no practical effect.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I didnt see anything about a dictatorial power, just a complaint about incompatibility with liberal democracy, and I tend to agree. That can come from broken systems as easily as a dictator. It is hard for me to imagine what would support 150 million per plaintiff. That is and order of magnitude more civil damages than are often awarded for cold blooded murder. Everyone hates Alex Jones, and I don't like him either, but that shouldn't trump justice and proportionality. It makes me think that the penalty was for more than what was on trial, and rather a reflection of mob justice by other means.
    - burkaman 2y ago
      > clearly just a government/institutional exercise in dictatorial/systemic power
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        fair, I missed that and read the system version, which is also there
        jacknews 2y ago
        Indeed 'dictatorial power' was not quite what I meant - I did not mean that Trump or Biden demanded a certain outcome for example, I mean that the system prosecutes these kinds of cases seemingly quite unfairly, as with Assange, or some of the maneuvers against Russell Brand, and that the actions just so happen to mesh with the interests of those in power. People can claim that everything is OK because, court of law, etc, but to me the system is clearly not delivering correct answers.
- righthand 2y ago
  What is unreasonable about it? Someone should get to lie and spread conspiracy theories for decades and have to only pay a little? The man had been doing it because he could, not because he didn’t understand it was a lie. Then when called out and asked to stop, he kept doing it.
  - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
    The amount of money versus the damage
    - righthand 2y ago
      The damage is tremendous, there are still people that are radicalized by it and spouting his lies today. Doesn’t sound like an unreasonable amount of money to me. What is unreasonable about the amount of money, what should have it been?
      - jacknews 2y ago
        oh f off. 'being radicalized' is not damage. That argument fully supports the assertion that this is a government/systemic effort. show some actual, material damage.
        anigbrowl 2y ago
        Why bother? Jones didn't provide credible evidence for the bullshit claim that the Sandy Hook massacre was fake, so he's being paid back in his own coin. Fuck him.
        righthand 2y ago
        Material damage would be collecting money by spreading lies about dead children…1.5billion sounds perfect.
        consteval 2y ago
        Being radicalized is damage. Some of those people radicalized will go on to perform mass shootings, literally. I would wager heavily that the risk of someone being a mass shooter amongst Jone's audience is much higher versus the average population.
- _Algernon_ 2y ago
  5'500'000'000 people on the internet, which means an average of 27 cents per user. To say that there is "no possible way" of reaching that level of emotional damages is a stretch.
  - jacknews 2y ago
    This look like the same argument the record companies use for piracy. Oh "we would have made 10 billion if everyone downloading illegally would have paid." Except of course most people wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't free. So, how much is 1.5B, per 'victim' of some obvious crackpots' rants.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    he wasn't paying for emotional damages done to the users of the internet. He was paying for emotional damages to 15 plaintiffs. 100 million is a lot of emotional suffering. Civil damages would have been lower if he killed the children himself. OJ paid 30 million civil damages for murder, and that was outstandingly high. The courts might as well have assigned a 1 trillion dollars of damages.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      You could argue that he was fined for wilfully communicating his lies to everyone on the internet (at least in the anglosphere). The award made by the jury (not the court) was explicitly for punitive damages. They picked a number to ensure he would be wiped out financially, and I think he deserves every bit of suck he is currently experiencing.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Clearly the jury placed a higher value on wiping out Jones financially than you would have.
- oblio 2y ago
  It depends. If the courts went through the regular processes and he did nothing but defy them, you could argue that on top of the money, he should have been in jail by now.
mightyham 2y ago
It's not that simple though. The initial guilty verdict was not even the decision of a jury, but the result of a fairly abnormal procedural decision by the judge. There was then a follow-on hearing to determine the amount in damages, where Jones' lawyer "accidentally" sent loads of evidence, not required by discovery, directly to the prosecution. The entire suit against Jones is filled with interested parties and corruption. It is definitely not a good example of better arguments prevailing.
AI_beffr 2y ago
no, it wasn't a civil case. https://x.com/AlexJonesMW3/status/1856495252850229386 https://x.com/AlexJonesMW3/status/1856495252850229386 its so frustrating that the only reason i am able to post this is because of X... because searching for this guys name or "poject veritas nudge" does not produce the result that it obviously should anywhere except for X. this is the tactic that is so often used by people like you. state something that is factually correct but completely incorrect and misleading when the full context is taken into account. even if this were an actual civil case brought on in the normal way it would still be the undeniable truth that one billion is silly and that this is political.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

That doesnt mean it was a reasonable amount.

pohuing 2y ago
No but it dispels the opening statement of gp about supposed dictatorial power.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Well, it moves the claim. Now the dictatorial power lies with the jury. The normal corrective for such a thing is to appeal the amount of the award, on the grounds that it is clearly unreasonable. For Alex Jones, it probably didn't matter - he was bankrupt either way, so the extreme amount of the award is just a middle finger from the jury, with no practical effect.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I didnt see anything about a dictatorial power, just a complaint about incompatibility with liberal democracy, and I tend to agree. That can come from broken systems as easily as a dictator. It is hard for me to imagine what would support 150 million per plaintiff. That is and order of magnitude more civil damages than are often awarded for cold blooded murder. Everyone hates Alex Jones, and I don't like him either, but that shouldn't trump justice and proportionality. It makes me think that the penalty was for more than what was on trial, and rather a reflection of mob justice by other means.
  - burkaman 2y ago
    > clearly just a government/institutional exercise in dictatorial/systemic power
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      fair, I missed that and read the system version, which is also there
      - jacknews 2y ago
        Indeed 'dictatorial power' was not quite what I meant - I did not mean that Trump or Biden demanded a certain outcome for example, I mean that the system prosecutes these kinds of cases seemingly quite unfairly, as with Assange, or some of the maneuvers against Russell Brand, and that the actions just so happen to mesh with the interests of those in power. People can claim that everything is OK because, court of law, etc, but to me the system is clearly not delivering correct answers.
righthand 2y ago
What is unreasonable about it? Someone should get to lie and spread conspiracy theories for decades and have to only pay a little? The man had been doing it because he could, not because he didn’t understand it was a lie. Then when called out and asked to stop, he kept doing it.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  The amount of money versus the damage
  - righthand 2y ago
    The damage is tremendous, there are still people that are radicalized by it and spouting his lies today. Doesn’t sound like an unreasonable amount of money to me. What is unreasonable about the amount of money, what should have it been?
    - jacknews 2y ago
      oh f off. 'being radicalized' is not damage. That argument fully supports the assertion that this is a government/systemic effort. show some actual, material damage.
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
        Why bother? Jones didn't provide credible evidence for the bullshit claim that the Sandy Hook massacre was fake, so he's being paid back in his own coin. Fuck him.
      - righthand 2y ago
        Material damage would be collecting money by spreading lies about dead children…1.5billion sounds perfect.
      - consteval 2y ago
        Being radicalized is damage. Some of those people radicalized will go on to perform mass shootings, literally. I would wager heavily that the risk of someone being a mass shooter amongst Jone's audience is much higher versus the average population.
_Algernon_ 2y ago
5'500'000'000 people on the internet, which means an average of 27 cents per user. To say that there is "no possible way" of reaching that level of emotional damages is a stretch.
- jacknews 2y ago
  This look like the same argument the record companies use for piracy. Oh "we would have made 10 billion if everyone downloading illegally would have paid." Except of course most people wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't free. So, how much is 1.5B, per 'victim' of some obvious crackpots' rants.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  he wasn't paying for emotional damages done to the users of the internet. He was paying for emotional damages to 15 plaintiffs. 100 million is a lot of emotional suffering. Civil damages would have been lower if he killed the children himself. OJ paid 30 million civil damages for murder, and that was outstandingly high. The courts might as well have assigned a 1 trillion dollars of damages.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    You could argue that he was fined for wilfully communicating his lies to everyone on the internet (at least in the anglosphere). The award made by the jury (not the court) was explicitly for punitive damages. They picked a number to ensure he would be wiped out financially, and I think he deserves every bit of suck he is currently experiencing.
anigbrowl 2y ago
Clearly the jury placed a higher value on wiping out Jones financially than you would have.
oblio 2y ago
It depends. If the courts went through the regular processes and he did nothing but defy them, you could argue that on top of the money, he should have been in jail by now.

mightyham 2y ago

It's not that simple though. The initial guilty verdict was not even the decision of a jury, but the result of a fairly abnormal procedural decision by the judge. There was then a follow-on hearing to determine the amount in damages, where Jones' lawyer "accidentally" sent loads of evidence, not required by discovery, directly to the prosecution. The entire suit against Jones is filled with interested parties and corruption. It is definitely not a good example of better arguments prevailing.

AI_beffr 2y ago

no, it wasn't a civil case. https://x.com/AlexJonesMW3/status/1856495252850229386 https://x.com/AlexJonesMW3/status/1856495252850229386 its so frustrating that the only reason i am able to post this is because of X... because searching for this guys name or "poject veritas nudge" does not produce the result that it obviously should anywhere except for X. this is the tactic that is so often used by people like you. state something that is factually correct but completely incorrect and misleading when the full context is taken into account. even if this were an actual civil case brought on in the normal way it would still be the undeniable truth that one billion is silly and that this is political.