4 ms·

> Alex Jones is such a big name and has other channels (x.com, Joe Rogan etc.) that he can easily build a similar site/business under a new domain name. Maybe

> Alex Jones is such a big name and has other channels (x.com, Joe Rogan etc.) that he can easily build a similar site/business under a new domain name. Maybe but the judgement was for 1B USD. So any profits would probably be garnished away. Basically, lawfare was used to censor Alex Jones. I wonder if this is a case for the Supreme Court and First Amendment rights?

sophacles 2y ago
Was it? The constitution lays out slander and libel as types of speech that can be censored. The trashy Jones then knowingly and maliciously lied about people for profit - aka libel and slander. Seems reasonable to take the money he made as well as punitive damages. How is censorship?
- rs999gti 2y ago
  > How is censorship? How does he make future money, you know for living? The judgement basically means the courts get to garnish his wages until the judgement is paid. Jones is a goof to me and I like seeing him rant and rave and wear foil hats. But I don't think anyone should have their livelihood taken from them by censorship of the courts. EDIT: remember all judgments and penalties cut both ways. Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media. Lower the judgement to 1M USD (EDIT: or something reasonable) and let's move on.
  - egoisticalgoat 2y ago
    Not sure how it works in the US, but e.g. in germany only a certain portion of your wages go towards debts, they let you have a certain portion for yourself since you need it to live.
  - sophacles 2y ago
    His livelihood wasn't taken. His assets were taken because he did damages and has to pay for those damages. He can go get all sorts of jobs. Yeah his wages will be garnished, but that doesn't mean his whole paycheck - just the lesser of 25% of the paycheck or 30x minimum wage. He can make money and a living with that just fine. Same as I'd expect for anyone intentionally lying and hurting people for money - whether I "follow" them or not. Perhaps you should find some reputable sources for information, instead of relying on the proven liar to tell the truth about his situation?
    - rs999gti 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tptacek 2y ago
        It's OK to have an unpopular opinion here, but not OK to cast aspersions on people who object to that opinion.
      - sophacles 2y ago
        Interesting position... You dont like cancel culture, but support Jones - a person who is literally being discussed for encouraging his followers to shut down the people saying their kids were killed. I mean the statements about crisis actors and whatnot were maliciously false, and pure slander. But to those who beleived them, Jones was advocating for them to be cancelled - that is they should be stopped from spreading lies and that they should be locked up and sent away. Odd juxtaposition.
        jazzyjackson 2y ago
        Well you see, he wasnt being serious when he was calling the parents of slain children crisis actors, he was just being entertaining.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media Anyone who knowingly spreads lies about a person and causes them harm should face legal consequences.
  - result2vino 2y ago
    > Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media. Christ. As a non-American, this comment says a lot about the hilariously broken state of your political landscape. “It could happen to one of your guys, and that somehow makes it bad!” Anyone that does what Alex did deserves his punishment, and I’d be against anyone that did what he did, even if I previously “followed” them.
- tptacek 2y ago
  The constitution lays out slander and libel as types of speech that can be censored I don't think defamation law is unconstitutional, but, no it doesn't.
  - labster 2y ago
    The US courts have ruled that there are time, place, and manner limits on freedom of speech.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I don't think defamation law is unconstitutional.
      - labster 2y ago
        Neither do I
    - mionhe 2y ago
      Yes. But as he didn't overtly call for violence against anyone here, it doesn't apply.
qingcharles 2y ago
Lawfare? This is literally how defamation works. If someone said on the Internet said that rs999gti was a "tax-evading, pyramid-scheming, mullet-wearing, karaoke-ruining, ferret-hoarding, snake-oil-selling, cereal-with-water-eating, grammar-mangling, table-manner-less, engagement-ring-pawning, salad-dodging, traffic-cone-stealing, apology-dodger," and it wasn’t true, I think you’d probably like to sue them and take their money too.
- rs999gti 2y ago
  > Lawfare? Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech, NOTE: I did not say free speech. What he did is reprehensible but not enough that he is basically black balled from making a living. Penalties yes, loss of livelihood no.
  - gonzo 2y ago
    Alex is free to work at the local car wash.
  - jpk 2y ago
    Having your wages garnished doesn't mean you starve to death. He's perfectly capable of making a living, supporting himself and his dependents, if any, but his ability to build wealth will be restricted. I don't know the particulars of this case, but generally: "The garnishment amount is limited to 25% of your disposable earnings for that week (what's left after mandatory deductions) or the amount by which your disposable earnings for that week exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage, whichever is less." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/if-wages-are-garnished-rights-33050.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/if-wages-are-garnish...
  - kabdib 2y ago
    $1B is the amount it took to get him to stop. He could have stopped earlier, and had ample opportunity, but that was apparently his price.
  - 2y ago

sophacles 2y ago

Was it? The constitution lays out slander and libel as types of speech that can be censored. The trashy Jones then knowingly and maliciously lied about people for profit - aka libel and slander. Seems reasonable to take the money he made as well as punitive damages. How is censorship?

rs999gti 2y ago
> How is censorship? How does he make future money, you know for living? The judgement basically means the courts get to garnish his wages until the judgement is paid. Jones is a goof to me and I like seeing him rant and rave and wear foil hats. But I don't think anyone should have their livelihood taken from them by censorship of the courts. EDIT: remember all judgments and penalties cut both ways. Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media. Lower the judgement to 1M USD (EDIT: or something reasonable) and let's move on.
- egoisticalgoat 2y ago
  Not sure how it works in the US, but e.g. in germany only a certain portion of your wages go towards debts, they let you have a certain portion for yourself since you need it to live.
- sophacles 2y ago
  His livelihood wasn't taken. His assets were taken because he did damages and has to pay for those damages. He can go get all sorts of jobs. Yeah his wages will be garnished, but that doesn't mean his whole paycheck - just the lesser of 25% of the paycheck or 30x minimum wage. He can make money and a living with that just fine. Same as I'd expect for anyone intentionally lying and hurting people for money - whether I "follow" them or not. Perhaps you should find some reputable sources for information, instead of relying on the proven liar to tell the truth about his situation?
  - rs999gti 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tptacek 2y ago
      It's OK to have an unpopular opinion here, but not OK to cast aspersions on people who object to that opinion.
    - sophacles 2y ago
      Interesting position... You dont like cancel culture, but support Jones - a person who is literally being discussed for encouraging his followers to shut down the people saying their kids were killed. I mean the statements about crisis actors and whatnot were maliciously false, and pure slander. But to those who beleived them, Jones was advocating for them to be cancelled - that is they should be stopped from spreading lies and that they should be locked up and sent away. Odd juxtaposition.
      - jazzyjackson 2y ago
        Well you see, he wasnt being serious when he was calling the parents of slain children crisis actors, he was just being entertaining.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media Anyone who knowingly spreads lies about a person and causes them harm should face legal consequences.
- result2vino 2y ago
  > Today Jones tomorrow someone you follow in the media. Christ. As a non-American, this comment says a lot about the hilariously broken state of your political landscape. “It could happen to one of your guys, and that somehow makes it bad!” Anyone that does what Alex did deserves his punishment, and I’d be against anyone that did what he did, even if I previously “followed” them.
tptacek 2y ago
The constitution lays out slander and libel as types of speech that can be censored I don't think defamation law is unconstitutional, but, no it doesn't.
- labster 2y ago
  The US courts have ruled that there are time, place, and manner limits on freedom of speech.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    I don't think defamation law is unconstitutional.
    - labster 2y ago
      Neither do I
  - mionhe 2y ago
    Yes. But as he didn't overtly call for violence against anyone here, it doesn't apply.

qingcharles 2y ago

Lawfare? This is literally how defamation works. If someone said on the Internet said that rs999gti was a "tax-evading, pyramid-scheming, mullet-wearing, karaoke-ruining, ferret-hoarding, snake-oil-selling, cereal-with-water-eating, grammar-mangling, table-manner-less, engagement-ring-pawning, salad-dodging, traffic-cone-stealing, apology-dodger," and it wasn’t true, I think you’d probably like to sue them and take their money too.

rs999gti 2y ago
> Lawfare? Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech, NOTE: I did not say free speech. What he did is reprehensible but not enough that he is basically black balled from making a living. Penalties yes, loss of livelihood no.
- gonzo 2y ago
  Alex is free to work at the local car wash.
- jpk 2y ago
  Having your wages garnished doesn't mean you starve to death. He's perfectly capable of making a living, supporting himself and his dependents, if any, but his ability to build wealth will be restricted. I don't know the particulars of this case, but generally: "The garnishment amount is limited to 25% of your disposable earnings for that week (what's left after mandatory deductions) or the amount by which your disposable earnings for that week exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage, whichever is less." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/if-wages-are-garnished-rights-33050.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/if-wages-are-garnish...
- kabdib 2y ago
  $1B is the amount it took to get him to stop. He could have stopped earlier, and had ample opportunity, but that was apparently his price.
- 2y ago