4 ms·

It wasn't a billion dollars for a single thing, it was awards to 15 different defendants, ranging from ~30-120 million each. More importantly, you're missing t

It wasn't a billion dollars for a single thing, it was awards to 15 different defendants, ranging from ~30-120 million each. More importantly, you're missing that this was a default judgment - Jones didn't defend himself, so the award is kind of the theoretical maximum. The results aren't comparable to regular court cases where both sides make their case.

impossiblefork 2y ago
Yes, but it's still the value of a whole town. A legal system must be robust even to weird or peculiar people who refuse to work with its rules and still produce reasonable results.
- pavlov 2y ago
  Why should the system accommodate people who refuse to defend themselves? I understand that in a system like Russia where dissidents face made-up charges and their attorneys are harassed by the state. But Alex Jones isn’t in that kind of position at all. He has no problem getting legal representation. The default judgment basically means he admitted guilt by his refusal. That was his choice.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    Because such a system creates absurdities. There are always going to be crazy people and a system must be able to deal with them.
    - maeil 2y ago
      This is dealing with them. It's just not dealing with them in a way that you like.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      The system is dealing with them: By imposing the maximum possible judgment.
- fenomas 2y ago
  Nonsense - a legal system must apply the law. Also, Jones wasn't "weird or peculiar" - he repeatedly disobeyed and misled the court. This is like a soccer match where one team won by fifty goals, because the other team repeatedly committed fouls and then left the pitch, and you're arguing that the referee should disallow some of the goals because you feel in your gut that fifty is too many.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    It must give reasonable results, and a 1 billion judgement against individual over something like this is not. That procedure or rules have been followed is no reason to accept an absurd outcome. An absurd outcome is rather a reason to reject a set of rules or procedures.
    - sp33k3rph433k 2y ago
      And this absurd outcome is partially due to a flagrant disregard for the sets of rules and procedures that came before this case. The Knowledge Fight podcast covers this case in its entirety and it's clear that Infowars et al. has toed the line of criminal to delay and deny justice to the victims. The legal system hit the end of the road and said "everything owed to the victims or everything Infowars has" and this is the result.

impossiblefork 2y ago

Yes, but it's still the value of a whole town. A legal system must be robust even to weird or peculiar people who refuse to work with its rules and still produce reasonable results.

pavlov 2y ago
Why should the system accommodate people who refuse to defend themselves? I understand that in a system like Russia where dissidents face made-up charges and their attorneys are harassed by the state. But Alex Jones isn’t in that kind of position at all. He has no problem getting legal representation. The default judgment basically means he admitted guilt by his refusal. That was his choice.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Because such a system creates absurdities. There are always going to be crazy people and a system must be able to deal with them.
  - maeil 2y ago
    This is dealing with them. It's just not dealing with them in a way that you like.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    The system is dealing with them: By imposing the maximum possible judgment.
fenomas 2y ago
Nonsense - a legal system must apply the law. Also, Jones wasn't "weird or peculiar" - he repeatedly disobeyed and misled the court. This is like a soccer match where one team won by fifty goals, because the other team repeatedly committed fouls and then left the pitch, and you're arguing that the referee should disallow some of the goals because you feel in your gut that fifty is too many.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  It must give reasonable results, and a 1 billion judgement against individual over something like this is not. That procedure or rules have been followed is no reason to accept an absurd outcome. An absurd outcome is rather a reason to reject a set of rules or procedures.
  - sp33k3rph433k 2y ago
    And this absurd outcome is partially due to a flagrant disregard for the sets of rules and procedures that came before this case. The Knowledge Fight podcast covers this case in its entirety and it's clear that Infowars et al. has toed the line of criminal to delay and deny justice to the victims. The legal system hit the end of the road and said "everything owed to the victims or everything Infowars has" and this is the result.