3 ms·

> This is dangerously close to making the penalty the loss of his first amendment rights. They'll never be able to stop him from creating "The Alex Jones Off t

> This is dangerously close to making the penalty the loss of his first amendment rights. They'll never be able to stop him from creating "The Alex Jones Off the Deep End Show" where he thrills listeners with zany tales of conspiracies that can only be held at bay with these brand new supplements. He just has to forfeit Infowars and its assets.

ceejayoz 2y ago
They can, however, take all his profits from the new show until he's square.
- wyldfire 2y ago
  Probably not all profits but yeah, substantial garnishing.
akira2501 2y ago
> They'll never be able to stop him from creating "The Alex Jones Off the Deep End Show" where he thrills listeners with zany tales of conspiracies that can only be held at bay with these brand new supplements So you're unable to think about this problem without putting your bias at the forefront? > He just has to forfeit Infowars and its assets. Actually, with this ruling, he does not. Roger Stone's group will get a legitimate change to purchase it to keep it under Jones' control. If you think that's a miscarriage of justice, as the OP does, can you explain why? Why is forfeiture of his platform a necessity in your eyes?
- wyldfire 2y ago
  > So you're unable to think about this problem without putting your bias at the forefront? He is a conspiracy theorist, this is his thing. And he sells supplements on his show. Those are facts, right? I suppose my bias only shows with the characterization of "zany tales"? But IMO it's not even a stretch, this guy seems really quite off base. > Why is forfeiture of his platform a necessity in your eyes? I mean, it's not. But he has assets and liabilities, right? Right now his liabilities vastly outweigh his assets. So it's unjust to deny his creditors access to his assets. He can keep his house and a car, I guess. Or whatever is normal/typical assets to be preserved in bankruptcy. But his interest in Infowars is not an inalienable right. He has free speech, freer speech than any generation before him. He could broadcast a new show from his personal cell phone and it would be dynamite production value compared to AM radio shows that have been used in decades past (and still used today). He can even resume saying things about Sandy Hook victims that he walked back during the trial. He just risks new liabilities if he does that.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    [flagged]

ceejayoz 2y ago

They can, however, take all his profits from the new show until he's square.

wyldfire 2y ago
Probably not all profits but yeah, substantial garnishing.

akira2501 2y ago

> They'll never be able to stop him from creating "The Alex Jones Off the Deep End Show" where he thrills listeners with zany tales of conspiracies that can only be held at bay with these brand new supplements So you're unable to think about this problem without putting your bias at the forefront? > He just has to forfeit Infowars and its assets. Actually, with this ruling, he does not. Roger Stone's group will get a legitimate change to purchase it to keep it under Jones' control. If you think that's a miscarriage of justice, as the OP does, can you explain why? Why is forfeiture of his platform a necessity in your eyes?

wyldfire 2y ago
> So you're unable to think about this problem without putting your bias at the forefront? He is a conspiracy theorist, this is his thing. And he sells supplements on his show. Those are facts, right? I suppose my bias only shows with the characterization of "zany tales"? But IMO it's not even a stretch, this guy seems really quite off base. > Why is forfeiture of his platform a necessity in your eyes? I mean, it's not. But he has assets and liabilities, right? Right now his liabilities vastly outweigh his assets. So it's unjust to deny his creditors access to his assets. He can keep his house and a car, I guess. Or whatever is normal/typical assets to be preserved in bankruptcy. But his interest in Infowars is not an inalienable right. He has free speech, freer speech than any generation before him. He could broadcast a new show from his personal cell phone and it would be dynamite production value compared to AM radio shows that have been used in decades past (and still used today). He can even resume saying things about Sandy Hook victims that he walked back during the trial. He just risks new liabilities if he does that.
- akira2501 2y ago
  [flagged]