6 ms·

I've seen this case a bunch of times but I can never wrap my head around how the judge arrived at the 1.5 Billion dollars, because Alex Jones falsely claimed th

I've seen this case a bunch of times but I can never wrap my head around how the judge arrived at the 1.5 Billion dollars, because Alex Jones falsely claimed the school shooting was staged. How did that claim cause 1.5 Billion, with a B, in damages to the victims?

galleywest200 2y ago
This is a bit reductionist. These people were followed and harassed by his followers for years. Remember, this is a guy who sells a bunch of "prepper" gear to prepare for some imaginary future conflict. There are certain types of people who listen to every word he says, and he knows this. https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sa... >The shooting had barely happened when Jones began pushing the falsehood that it was a hoax. Victims’ families who sued Jones said they were subjected to years of torment, threats and abuse by people who believed the lies told on his show. One father said conspiracy theorists urinated on his 7-year-old son’s grave and threatened to dig up the coffin.
- glenstein 2y ago
  >These people were followed and harassed by his followers for years. And not only that, it likely would have continued in perpetuity with the continued operation of Infowars.
yorwba 2y ago
The amount was awarded by a jury, and it's split across 15 plaintiffs: https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches-verdict-alex-jones-pay-sandy-hook/story?id=91399930 https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches-verdict-alex-jones-pa...
- benmmurphy 2y ago
  1.5 billion over 15 plaintiffs does seem high. i was under the assumption a wrongful death would not reach 100 million often. so its kind of questionable that is he is paying out an average of 100 million per plaintiff for the torts he was found liable for.
ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
Jones declined to put up a defense and failed to comply with court orders, so the prosecution got what they asked for. I'm sure nuance could be added here, but this is broadly why the damages were so high
- morkalork 2y ago
  Courts do tend to negatively view any disrespect for their authority.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
    [flagged]
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  I still think was an extremely gross move for the legal system. Are you seriously telling me that if a guy has marijuana in the park, doesn’t put up a defense, and doesn’t comply with court orders - the court will slap him with a $3 million fine, or $10 million fine, or $20 million fine, because the prosecutor asked? Also, for Alex Jones, this is one of the best career moves in history. At most, he will only be allowed to pay 30% of his paycheck - but this singular move has done more for his narrative than spending 30% on advertising would have. I have to even admit, on this specific issue, he’s right - the legal system absolutely overreached.
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    No one is telling you that; civil default is not a thing in the criminal Justice system.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      Sure, it was a civil trial - but a judge signed off on the amount, and the jury’s decision, even though historically in any other case, such an amount would have been overruled. In which case, the closest equivalent would be if a civilian claimed they inhaled Marijuana smoke, therefore, $20 million. With the judge adding $10 million as a deterrent. Also, the judge imposed $473 million of it. That’s entirely on the court.
alistairSH 2y ago
About a third of that amount was punitive damages (and later reduced). He only owes a bit over $1B to the families he and his followers harassed over the course of years. A lot of the court history is listed here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
reverendsteveii 2y ago
it's that it was so widespread for so long. If I harass you today I'm guilty of one count of harassment but if I harass you every day for years I'm guilty of one count of harassment for each separate incident, if I incite hundreds of people to harass you every day over the course of years I'm guilty hundreds of counts per day, and if I incite hundreds of people to harass hundreds of people every day for years I'm guilty of harassment for each perpetrator/incident/datestamp combination
- zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
  Incitement shouldn't be a thing when we believe in free will.
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    is/ought issue. we can debate how things are in an ideal legal system or we can talk about the one that exists right now, but we can't talk about the real legal system but sub in an ideal system any time the real one disappoints you.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    This argument is trivially dismissed by noting the advertising industry exists. Google thinks annual advertising spend globally is somewhat north of 700 billion USD. Assuming marketing isn't literally a cult servicing a pervasive superstition that transcends geopolitical and cultural barriers, this would suggest that humans can in fact be manipulated to ends that aren't necessarily in line with their interests.
MisterTea 2y ago
> How did that claim cause 1.5 Billion, with a B, in damages to the victims? I dont think it's about assigning a dollar amount to the victims as much as it's about punishing a morally bankrupt liar for telling the world that a mass killing of children is a hoax to sell the equivalent of diet pills. It's like kicking an asshole in the balls a few times for good measure.
- a-french-anon 2y ago
  I mean, how can you know that he's a liar, i.e. that he believes that what he says is wrong but still says it? Because that's the moral crux of matter, to me.
  - hackyhacky 2y ago
    > I mean, how can you know that he's a liar, By a preponderance of the evidence, same as any civil trial. If he wanted to convince the jury that he's not a liar, he had an opportunity to try to do so, but he did not cooperate.
  - nancyminusone 2y ago
    You could take his own word for it when he admitted as much in court.
    - a-french-anon 2y ago
      If that's the case (pretty surprising, to be honest, as playing dumb would be the last defense in this case), case closed, indeed.
      - rob74 2y ago
        Ah, ok, I was trying to figure out what the difference is between this case and the thousands of lies that other right-wing figures tell every day, and maybe it's this: never admit that you lied! Or of course it could be that the others have better lawyers, deeper pockets, better connections etc. etc. OTOH of course, you can't be sued just for lying. For instance, who is going to sue Trump for lying about the amount of US aid for Ukraine (it's not 300 or 350 billion, "just" 119 billion), about it being "given away", and about the US being the biggest donor (the EU has spent 138 billion)? Maybe Joe Biden?
Yossarrian22 2y ago
Not defending yourself and hiding evidence during discovery tends to go badly
GuB-42 2y ago
It seems weird to me too. That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself. And even that seems about an order of magnitude higher than I would have expected, even including the psychological damage of the surviving victims and the community at large. To me, it looks like some kind of a legal exploit to destroy Infowars and Alex Jones business in general, which I think is deserved (it is essentially a scam), but not very satisfying from a rule of law perspective.
- glenstein 2y ago
  >That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself. I don't know, ginning up mobs to harass the families who just lost their kids is probably the next worst thing. Moral responsibility involves a combination of harm and awareness of what one is doing. I would be profoundly disappointed if someone could go this far and still not qualify for maximum punitive damages.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- harimau777 2y ago
  I'm not sure it's exactly a legal exploit. As I understand it, part of the purpose of this sort of suit is to prevent the person being sued from continuing to defame the victims. Therefore, the penalty is set at what is likely to accomplish that. However, in this case, the only penalty likely to stop Jones is one large enough to put him out of business.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself The economic focus of the civil justice system, and the fact that the dead can't claim damages for death, means that killing people who aren't the breadwinners that others depend on, and especially children who are themselves dependent economically, usually produces very limited damages, whereas defamation of the living with wide reach and high impact has very large damages. Criminal consequences, of course, scale differently.
harimau777 2y ago
My understanding is that Jones in effect siced his crazy fans on the victims of the school shooting by saying that they were crisis actors hired to advance some sort of conspiracy. That resulted in them being harassed. In effect, Jones is a stochastic terrorist. I'm guessing that the amount was also high because it was felt that would be necessary to get him to stop making false statements. E.g. if the penalty was thousands of dollars and he was making millions of dollars then why would he stop?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tomrod 2y ago
This is how a court ensures behavior like Mr. Jones' abhorrent disregard and flagrant contempt for the victims and for court orders is not repeated in the future.
stronglikedan 2y ago
unchecked judicial activism is the root cause of this travesty of justice
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  I think you'll find that inciting randos to harrass grieving families is the root cause here, but I'd hear what about any of this is a travesty?
dragonwriter 2y ago
> I've seen this case a bunch of times but I can never wrap my head around how the judge arrived at the 1.5 Billion dollars, because Alex Jones falsely claimed the school shooting was staged. How did that claim cause 1.5 Billion, with a B, in damages to the victims? The nearly $1.5 billion consists of nearly $1 billion in actual damages found by the jury, which you can look up the amounts and kinds of actual damages they found for each individual plaintiff in the case relatively easily, plus $473 million in punitive damages assigned by the judge (punitive damages are not compensation for harms caused to the victims.) It sounds like you’ve seen the headline of the approximate damage award many times, but never even read any of the information about it.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  A. Juries can be overruled; and in cases like this, they historically arguably would have been. B. The judge imposing $473 million is ludicrous by itself. C. Even if Jones was not complaint, consider my “marijuana in the park” example. If a guy smokes marijuana publicly, someone smells it, they sue, the guy doesn’t follow orders and lies - does the lack of compliance mean that mean the court can impose $20, $50, $100 million? No. It is still not proportionate to the crime. D. Unless you can prove he directly forced his followers into an action, believe me, I don’t think you want me killing someone, then having you be sued because I found one violent comment from you that “incited” me. Especially if that someone has authority, a judge or maybe a president. Citing you as my inspiration because you vented on a Thursday afternoon shouldn’t make you personally liable for $200 million.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Juries can be overruled; A judge can issue a judgement nothwithstanding a verdict only of no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict on the ecidence presented, given the applicable (in this case,as is generally the case in civil cases, “preponderance of the evidence”) standard of proof. That's a very easy standard of proof to meet when only one side presents evidence. Play stupid (intentional default) games, win stupid (larger civil verdict than you would have with even a minimal defense) prizes. > The judge imposing $473 million is ludicrous by itself. Based on US Supreme Court precedent, depending on wilfullness of the conduct and othee specifics of the circumstances (which, based on what was before the judge to consider, it is reasonable to find that even the outer limit was met), punitive damages can be reasonable up to a single digit multiple of actual damages. Here, the punitive damages were around half the actual damages What's your basis for claiming that the punitive award is unreasonable? > Even if Jones was not complaint, compliant my “marijuana in the park” example. What about it? The example fails to be analogous and is irrelevant; it obscures rather than illistrates whatever argument you are trying to make with it, as does whatever that sentence abusing “compliant” and “complaint” above is.
NickC25 2y ago
> How did that claim cause 1.5 Billion, with a B, in damages to the victims? Go ask the parents of the victims about the amount of harrassment, bullying and outright abuse they were subjected to. $1.5 billion is probably way too low for seeing a bullet hole in your 7 year old's head and then being told that it didn't happen. I wouldn't accept a trillion dollars for that.
strogonoff 2y ago
To say that Alex Jones’ misdeed is that he simply falsely claimed the school shooting was staged is an understatement to the point of bad faith. To people wondering why damages are high and maybe even be on par with a “wrongful death”: since time immemorial it is known in human culture that there can, in fact, be things worse than death.

galleywest200 2y ago

This is a bit reductionist. These people were followed and harassed by his followers for years. Remember, this is a guy who sells a bunch of "prepper" gear to prepare for some imaginary future conflict. There are certain types of people who listen to every word he says, and he knows this. https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sandy-hook-0c3576e3c4bd853ac2cc5342118fca8c https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sa... >The shooting had barely happened when Jones began pushing the falsehood that it was a hoax. Victims’ families who sued Jones said they were subjected to years of torment, threats and abuse by people who believed the lies told on his show. One father said conspiracy theorists urinated on his 7-year-old son’s grave and threatened to dig up the coffin.

glenstein 2y ago
>These people were followed and harassed by his followers for years. And not only that, it likely would have continued in perpetuity with the continued operation of Infowars.

yorwba 2y ago

The amount was awarded by a jury, and it's split across 15 plaintiffs: https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches-verdict-alex-jones-pay-sandy-hook/story?id=91399930 https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches-verdict-alex-jones-pa...

benmmurphy 2y ago
1.5 billion over 15 plaintiffs does seem high. i was under the assumption a wrongful death would not reach 100 million often. so its kind of questionable that is he is paying out an average of 100 million per plaintiff for the torts he was found liable for.

ToValueFunfetti 2y ago

Jones declined to put up a defense and failed to comply with court orders, so the prosecution got what they asked for. I'm sure nuance could be added here, but this is broadly why the damages were so high

morkalork 2y ago
Courts do tend to negatively view any disrespect for their authority.
- zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
  [flagged]
gjsman-1000 2y ago
I still think was an extremely gross move for the legal system. Are you seriously telling me that if a guy has marijuana in the park, doesn’t put up a defense, and doesn’t comply with court orders - the court will slap him with a $3 million fine, or $10 million fine, or $20 million fine, because the prosecutor asked? Also, for Alex Jones, this is one of the best career moves in history. At most, he will only be allowed to pay 30% of his paycheck - but this singular move has done more for his narrative than spending 30% on advertising would have. I have to even admit, on this specific issue, he’s right - the legal system absolutely overreached.
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  No one is telling you that; civil default is not a thing in the criminal Justice system.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Sure, it was a civil trial - but a judge signed off on the amount, and the jury’s decision, even though historically in any other case, such an amount would have been overruled. In which case, the closest equivalent would be if a civilian claimed they inhaled Marijuana smoke, therefore, $20 million. With the judge adding $10 million as a deterrent. Also, the judge imposed $473 million of it. That’s entirely on the court.

alistairSH 2y ago

About a third of that amount was punitive damages (and later reduced). He only owes a bit over $1B to the families he and his followers harassed over the course of years. A lot of the court history is listed here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones

reverendsteveii 2y ago

it's that it was so widespread for so long. If I harass you today I'm guilty of one count of harassment but if I harass you every day for years I'm guilty of one count of harassment for each separate incident, if I incite hundreds of people to harass you every day over the course of years I'm guilty hundreds of counts per day, and if I incite hundreds of people to harass hundreds of people every day for years I'm guilty of harassment for each perpetrator/incident/datestamp combination

zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
Incitement shouldn't be a thing when we believe in free will.
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  is/ought issue. we can debate how things are in an ideal legal system or we can talk about the one that exists right now, but we can't talk about the real legal system but sub in an ideal system any time the real one disappoints you.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  This argument is trivially dismissed by noting the advertising industry exists. Google thinks annual advertising spend globally is somewhat north of 700 billion USD. Assuming marketing isn't literally a cult servicing a pervasive superstition that transcends geopolitical and cultural barriers, this would suggest that humans can in fact be manipulated to ends that aren't necessarily in line with their interests.

MisterTea 2y ago

> How did that claim cause 1.5 Billion, with a B, in damages to the victims? I dont think it's about assigning a dollar amount to the victims as much as it's about punishing a morally bankrupt liar for telling the world that a mass killing of children is a hoax to sell the equivalent of diet pills. It's like kicking an asshole in the balls a few times for good measure.

a-french-anon 2y ago
I mean, how can you know that he's a liar, i.e. that he believes that what he says is wrong but still says it? Because that's the moral crux of matter, to me.
- hackyhacky 2y ago
  > I mean, how can you know that he's a liar, By a preponderance of the evidence, same as any civil trial. If he wanted to convince the jury that he's not a liar, he had an opportunity to try to do so, but he did not cooperate.
- nancyminusone 2y ago
  You could take his own word for it when he admitted as much in court.
  - a-french-anon 2y ago
    If that's the case (pretty surprising, to be honest, as playing dumb would be the last defense in this case), case closed, indeed.
    - rob74 2y ago
      Ah, ok, I was trying to figure out what the difference is between this case and the thousands of lies that other right-wing figures tell every day, and maybe it's this: never admit that you lied! Or of course it could be that the others have better lawyers, deeper pockets, better connections etc. etc. OTOH of course, you can't be sued just for lying. For instance, who is going to sue Trump for lying about the amount of US aid for Ukraine (it's not 300 or 350 billion, "just" 119 billion), about it being "given away", and about the US being the biggest donor (the EU has spent 138 billion)? Maybe Joe Biden?

Yossarrian22 2y ago

Not defending yourself and hiding evidence during discovery tends to go badly

GuB-42 2y ago

It seems weird to me too. That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself. And even that seems about an order of magnitude higher than I would have expected, even including the psychological damage of the surviving victims and the community at large. To me, it looks like some kind of a legal exploit to destroy Infowars and Alex Jones business in general, which I think is deserved (it is essentially a scam), but not very satisfying from a rule of law perspective.

glenstein 2y ago
>That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself. I don't know, ginning up mobs to harass the families who just lost their kids is probably the next worst thing. Moral responsibility involves a combination of harm and awareness of what one is doing. I would be profoundly disappointed if someone could go this far and still not qualify for maximum punitive damages.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
harimau777 2y ago
I'm not sure it's exactly a legal exploit. As I understand it, part of the purpose of this sort of suit is to prevent the person being sued from continuing to defame the victims. Therefore, the penalty is set at what is likely to accomplish that. However, in this case, the only penalty likely to stop Jones is one large enough to put him out of business.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> That's the kind of damage one could expect from the responsible of the school shooting itself The economic focus of the civil justice system, and the fact that the dead can't claim damages for death, means that killing people who aren't the breadwinners that others depend on, and especially children who are themselves dependent economically, usually produces very limited damages, whereas defamation of the living with wide reach and high impact has very large damages. Criminal consequences, of course, scale differently.

harimau777 2y ago

My understanding is that Jones in effect siced his crazy fans on the victims of the school shooting by saying that they were crisis actors hired to advance some sort of conspiracy. That resulted in them being harassed. In effect, Jones is a stochastic terrorist. I'm guessing that the amount was also high because it was felt that would be necessary to get him to stop making false statements. E.g. if the penalty was thousands of dollars and he was making millions of dollars then why would he stop?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tomrod 2y ago

This is how a court ensures behavior like Mr. Jones' abhorrent disregard and flagrant contempt for the victims and for court orders is not repeated in the future.

stronglikedan 2y ago

unchecked judicial activism is the root cause of this travesty of justice

forgetfreeman 2y ago
I think you'll find that inciting randos to harrass grieving families is the root cause here, but I'd hear what about any of this is a travesty?

dragonwriter 2y ago

> I've seen this case a bunch of times but I can never wrap my head around how the judge arrived at the 1.5 Billion dollars, because Alex Jones falsely claimed the school shooting was staged. How did that claim cause 1.5 Billion, with a B, in damages to the victims? The nearly $1.5 billion consists of nearly $1 billion in actual damages found by the jury, which you can look up the amounts and kinds of actual damages they found for each individual plaintiff in the case relatively easily, plus $473 million in punitive damages assigned by the judge (punitive damages are not compensation for harms caused to the victims.) It sounds like you’ve seen the headline of the approximate damage award many times, but never even read any of the information about it.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
A. Juries can be overruled; and in cases like this, they historically arguably would have been. B. The judge imposing $473 million is ludicrous by itself. C. Even if Jones was not complaint, consider my “marijuana in the park” example. If a guy smokes marijuana publicly, someone smells it, they sue, the guy doesn’t follow orders and lies - does the lack of compliance mean that mean the court can impose $20, $50, $100 million? No. It is still not proportionate to the crime. D. Unless you can prove he directly forced his followers into an action, believe me, I don’t think you want me killing someone, then having you be sued because I found one violent comment from you that “incited” me. Especially if that someone has authority, a judge or maybe a president. Citing you as my inspiration because you vented on a Thursday afternoon shouldn’t make you personally liable for $200 million.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Juries can be overruled; A judge can issue a judgement nothwithstanding a verdict only of no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict on the ecidence presented, given the applicable (in this case,as is generally the case in civil cases, “preponderance of the evidence”) standard of proof. That's a very easy standard of proof to meet when only one side presents evidence. Play stupid (intentional default) games, win stupid (larger civil verdict than you would have with even a minimal defense) prizes. > The judge imposing $473 million is ludicrous by itself. Based on US Supreme Court precedent, depending on wilfullness of the conduct and othee specifics of the circumstances (which, based on what was before the judge to consider, it is reasonable to find that even the outer limit was met), punitive damages can be reasonable up to a single digit multiple of actual damages. Here, the punitive damages were around half the actual damages What's your basis for claiming that the punitive award is unreasonable? > Even if Jones was not complaint, compliant my “marijuana in the park” example. What about it? The example fails to be analogous and is irrelevant; it obscures rather than illistrates whatever argument you are trying to make with it, as does whatever that sentence abusing “compliant” and “complaint” above is.

NickC25 2y ago

> How did that claim cause 1.5 Billion, with a B, in damages to the victims? Go ask the parents of the victims about the amount of harrassment, bullying and outright abuse they were subjected to. $1.5 billion is probably way too low for seeing a bullet hole in your 7 year old's head and then being told that it didn't happen. I wouldn't accept a trillion dollars for that.

strogonoff 2y ago

To say that Alex Jones’ misdeed is that he simply falsely claimed the school shooting was staged is an understatement to the point of bad faith. To people wondering why damages are high and maybe even be on par with a “wrongful death”: since time immemorial it is known in human culture that there can, in fact, be things worse than death.