6 ms·

I doubt that the SH families will receive the kind of money they could have had if they accepted Jones' original offer. Their lawyers made it clear they were in

I doubt that the SH families will receive the kind of money they could have had if they accepted Jones' original offer. Their lawyers made it clear they were in it not for their clients' interest but for their own political agenda.

blackguardx 2y ago
Can you elaborate? What was the offer? They won a judgement over $1B. Also, I don’t think their agenda is political, it is personal.
- TeeMassive 2y ago
  Jones is not worth $1B. He's barely worth a million with the lawsuits and legal costs; thus the bankruptcy. He offered them about $100M over 20 years or something like that but the SH families lawyers refused. I've watched the trial, the SH lawyers are not loyal to the victims and families.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Right, the intention of the suit was to personally harm Jones as retribution for the immeasurable harm he has caused them. They don't need money, I'm sure they have enough. They denied his money because that isn't the point - they want to mock him. And, I fully support them. They're in a unique position and frankly I'm very impressed at their restraint in choosing the legal system over violence. If I were Jones, I would consider myself very lucky.
    - TeeMassive 2y ago
      Their intention was to silence him. Literally what they said; which is illegal. > They don't need money, These are normal people, what are you talking about? > I'm very impressed at their restraint in choosing the legal system over violence. That's not impressive, that's what the vast majority of people do.
      - artimaeis 2y ago
        > "That's not impressive, that's what the vast majority of people do." The vast majority of people don’t have to endure someone with an audience of millions falsely claiming their murdered children were part of a government conspiracy. Under those circumstances, many might be driven to retaliate violently. It’s a testament to these individuals' strength and restraint that they pursued justice through the legal system instead.
        TeeMassive 2y ago
        Life is not a movie. People are boring, want to avoid trouble as much as possible and don't even seriously consider the use of violence even when they are deeply hurt. The father who kills his kids' rapist? Very very rare.
      - consteval 2y ago
        > Their intention was to silence him. Literally what they said; which is illegal. No, defamation is illegal. Me suing you for lying and directly causing me financial harm is not illegal. > These are normal people, what are you talking about? They've gotten a lot of money on account of the fact their families were victims of a tragedy. I'm assuming they don't need more money because they literally turned down a few hundred thousand dollars from Jones. Also, this "what are you talking about?" BS needs to stop. You know what I'm talking about, or at least you can assume. Don't pretend like what I'm saying is so outrageous and unbelievable. You can respond without being annoying, please and thank you.
  - wasmitnetzen 2y ago
    They already got $73M from Remington. I wouldn't be after more money if I were in that position.
pyrale 2y ago
Maybe the families were more interested in fixing the issue than in receiving some blood money in exchange for continued harm.
- TeeMassive 2y ago
  Well they asked for money, not "fixing the issue", which is not enforceable anyway without violating the 1st so that's not even a power the court has. Alex Jones will still be able to speak and profit from it, just not under the Infowars brand.
  - hinkley 2y ago
    Lawyers file cases they can win to establish legal precedent. The 1st amendment doesn't protect all forms of speech. Shouting Fire in a theater, sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment.
    - TeeMassive 2y ago
      > Lawyers file cases they can win to establish legal precedent. That's actually very rare. Most cases get settled out of court and most court case don't make it to appeal; thus no legal precedent. > Shouting Fire in a theater This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. > sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment. None of which are what Jones was sued for.
      - deathanatos 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... … he was sued for defamation[1], which is sort in line with the parent's point that the 1A doesn't grant you unfettered immunity to the consequences of your speech. AIUI, the cases in total have awarded nearly $2B cumulative to the plaintiffs. That's a pretty hefty sum. According to Wikipedia, most of it hasn't been paid by Jones. ("By the end of the summer of 2023, Jones had paid nothing to the families" [for $1.5B of the cumulative penalties, 1]) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_Elementa... > This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. (IANAL.) Partially overturned. And the existing jurisprudence still seems to say that like the above, you'd be held accountable for your actions. It isn't going to be "you can't say that", it would be something like "your actions (shouting fire, falsely) caused a stampede, and people were trampled, and you're now charged with manslaughter". (The Wikipedia article goes into this, too.)
Volundr 2y ago
Did the original offer include shutting down Infowars? Of not I expect many of them feel they got plenty more that whatever cash Jones was offering. There is more to this life than money.
- TeeMassive 2y ago
  > Did the original offer include shutting down Infowars? That was part of the SH families' lawyer final argument to the jury. > There is more to this life than money. Sure. But there's not much a civil lawsuit can ask outside of damages and reparations.
  - Volundr 2y ago
    And yet seeing the case through to the end instead of taking the first offer has seen Infowars taken from Alex Jones. I don't speak for the families, but if I were in their shoes that would be far more valuable to me than maximizing my payout.
    - TeeMassive 2y ago
      Alex Jones just created a new company and be shielded by Texas very protective laws against civil damages. So they accomplished nothing and will get barely nothing after legal costs.
      - tzs 2y ago
        Those Texas laws would only shield him in Texas courts. He can try to use a choice of forum clause in his terms of service to force lawsuits to take place in Texas but that only works with people who are subject to those terms of service. Unless Jones manages to limit himself to telling lies about people who use his new company he will be open to lawsuits outside of Texas.
triceratops 2y ago
I don't think the families wanted money. They wanted to ruin his life.

blackguardx 2y ago

Can you elaborate? What was the offer? They won a judgement over $1B. Also, I don’t think their agenda is political, it is personal.

TeeMassive 2y ago
Jones is not worth $1B. He's barely worth a million with the lawsuits and legal costs; thus the bankruptcy. He offered them about $100M over 20 years or something like that but the SH families lawyers refused. I've watched the trial, the SH lawyers are not loyal to the victims and families.
- consteval 2y ago
  Right, the intention of the suit was to personally harm Jones as retribution for the immeasurable harm he has caused them. They don't need money, I'm sure they have enough. They denied his money because that isn't the point - they want to mock him. And, I fully support them. They're in a unique position and frankly I'm very impressed at their restraint in choosing the legal system over violence. If I were Jones, I would consider myself very lucky.
  - TeeMassive 2y ago
    Their intention was to silence him. Literally what they said; which is illegal. > They don't need money, These are normal people, what are you talking about? > I'm very impressed at their restraint in choosing the legal system over violence. That's not impressive, that's what the vast majority of people do.
    - artimaeis 2y ago
      > "That's not impressive, that's what the vast majority of people do." The vast majority of people don’t have to endure someone with an audience of millions falsely claiming their murdered children were part of a government conspiracy. Under those circumstances, many might be driven to retaliate violently. It’s a testament to these individuals' strength and restraint that they pursued justice through the legal system instead.
      - TeeMassive 2y ago
        Life is not a movie. People are boring, want to avoid trouble as much as possible and don't even seriously consider the use of violence even when they are deeply hurt. The father who kills his kids' rapist? Very very rare.
    - consteval 2y ago
      > Their intention was to silence him. Literally what they said; which is illegal. No, defamation is illegal. Me suing you for lying and directly causing me financial harm is not illegal. > These are normal people, what are you talking about? They've gotten a lot of money on account of the fact their families were victims of a tragedy. I'm assuming they don't need more money because they literally turned down a few hundred thousand dollars from Jones. Also, this "what are you talking about?" BS needs to stop. You know what I'm talking about, or at least you can assume. Don't pretend like what I'm saying is so outrageous and unbelievable. You can respond without being annoying, please and thank you.
- wasmitnetzen 2y ago
  They already got $73M from Remington. I wouldn't be after more money if I were in that position.

pyrale 2y ago

Maybe the families were more interested in fixing the issue than in receiving some blood money in exchange for continued harm.

TeeMassive 2y ago
Well they asked for money, not "fixing the issue", which is not enforceable anyway without violating the 1st so that's not even a power the court has. Alex Jones will still be able to speak and profit from it, just not under the Infowars brand.
- hinkley 2y ago
  Lawyers file cases they can win to establish legal precedent. The 1st amendment doesn't protect all forms of speech. Shouting Fire in a theater, sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment.
  - TeeMassive 2y ago
    > Lawyers file cases they can win to establish legal precedent. That's actually very rare. Most cases get settled out of court and most court case don't make it to appeal; thus no legal precedent. > Shouting Fire in a theater This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. > sedition, inciting mobs, entrapment, accessory to a crime (by encouraging someone to do it). None of these are covered in the 1st Amendment. None of which are what Jones was sued for.
    - deathanatos 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... … he was sued for defamation[1], which is sort in line with the parent's point that the 1A doesn't grant you unfettered immunity to the consequences of your speech. AIUI, the cases in total have awarded nearly $2B cumulative to the plaintiffs. That's a pretty hefty sum. According to Wikipedia, most of it hasn't been paid by Jones. ("By the end of the summer of 2023, Jones had paid nothing to the families" [for $1.5B of the cumulative penalties, 1]) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_Elementa... > This is a common misconception. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. (IANAL.) Partially overturned. And the existing jurisprudence still seems to say that like the above, you'd be held accountable for your actions. It isn't going to be "you can't say that", it would be something like "your actions (shouting fire, falsely) caused a stampede, and people were trampled, and you're now charged with manslaughter". (The Wikipedia article goes into this, too.)

Volundr 2y ago

Did the original offer include shutting down Infowars? Of not I expect many of them feel they got plenty more that whatever cash Jones was offering. There is more to this life than money.

TeeMassive 2y ago
> Did the original offer include shutting down Infowars? That was part of the SH families' lawyer final argument to the jury. > There is more to this life than money. Sure. But there's not much a civil lawsuit can ask outside of damages and reparations.
- Volundr 2y ago
  And yet seeing the case through to the end instead of taking the first offer has seen Infowars taken from Alex Jones. I don't speak for the families, but if I were in their shoes that would be far more valuable to me than maximizing my payout.
  - TeeMassive 2y ago
    Alex Jones just created a new company and be shielded by Texas very protective laws against civil damages. So they accomplished nothing and will get barely nothing after legal costs.
    - tzs 2y ago
      Those Texas laws would only shield him in Texas courts. He can try to use a choice of forum clause in his terms of service to force lawsuits to take place in Texas but that only works with people who are subject to those terms of service. Unless Jones manages to limit himself to telling lies about people who use his new company he will be open to lawsuits outside of Texas.

triceratops 2y ago

I don't think the families wanted money. They wanted to ruin his life.