4 ms·

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

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.
    - dragonwriter 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. It's provably false that “in any other case" such an amount would have been overruled, since much larger civil damage awards have been issued. If you mean to claim “on similar facts” then its an unfalsifiable counterfactual that just restares your conclusion as evidence for itself.
      - pnutjam 2y ago
        He's just muddying the waters in bad faith, ignore his "plausible" arguments because as you're demonstrating, they aren't. They are constructed to appear plausible and waste your time. The only winning move is not to play.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Punitive damages are hardly overreach. Here's some light reading: TL;DR: Punitive damages are used as a supplementary sanction in exceptional cases where compensatory damages do not provide sufficient levels of deterrence and retribution. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3903&context=clevstlrev https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... Note: Alex Jones claims and behavior pretty trivially clear the bar for "exceptional".
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    It can clear the bar for exceptional without falling into the equivalent of “infinite damages”. $100 million is substantially less deterring than $1 billion? A fallible human legal system that condemns people to Hell, and pulls random damages numbers out of the air, deserves to be treated like a laughingstock of justice.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Given the general lack of infallible human institutions the US legal system is hardly unique in it's failings, and while it's certainly open to critique I have to question what about this instance offends you? Alex Jones minted fuck you money basically torturing some of the most traumatized people in the country and then more or less dared the court. Given the gross nature of his violations of acceptable ethical behavior I'm having difficulty mustering any outrage on his behalf for all of the same reasons I have no concern for Jeffery Dahmer's prison conditions. So what's the issue here?
- NickC25 2y ago
  > the legal system absolutely overreached. I see your bad faith argument, and let me respond with mine: The legal system absolutely UNDERreached here. Think otherwise? You got kids? Let's do a little experiment.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> so the prosecution got what they asked for No, that's false. The jury found actual damages, and the judge awarded punitive damages, both on the facts presented by the plaintiffs because there was nothing else to consider, but the plaintiffs were not simply awarded what they asked for.
wakawaka28 2y ago
The plaintiffs famously asked for over a trillion dollars, more than the GDP of most countries. So they didn't get what they asked for, even if they got more than they should have in the end.

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.
  - dragonwriter 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. It's provably false that “in any other case" such an amount would have been overruled, since much larger civil damage awards have been issued. If you mean to claim “on similar facts” then its an unfalsifiable counterfactual that just restares your conclusion as evidence for itself.
    - pnutjam 2y ago
      He's just muddying the waters in bad faith, ignore his "plausible" arguments because as you're demonstrating, they aren't. They are constructed to appear plausible and waste your time. The only winning move is not to play.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
forgetfreeman 2y ago
Punitive damages are hardly overreach. Here's some light reading: TL;DR: Punitive damages are used as a supplementary sanction in exceptional cases where compensatory damages do not provide sufficient levels of deterrence and retribution. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3903&context=clevstlrev https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... Note: Alex Jones claims and behavior pretty trivially clear the bar for "exceptional".
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  It can clear the bar for exceptional without falling into the equivalent of “infinite damages”. $100 million is substantially less deterring than $1 billion? A fallible human legal system that condemns people to Hell, and pulls random damages numbers out of the air, deserves to be treated like a laughingstock of justice.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Given the general lack of infallible human institutions the US legal system is hardly unique in it's failings, and while it's certainly open to critique I have to question what about this instance offends you? Alex Jones minted fuck you money basically torturing some of the most traumatized people in the country and then more or less dared the court. Given the gross nature of his violations of acceptable ethical behavior I'm having difficulty mustering any outrage on his behalf for all of the same reasons I have no concern for Jeffery Dahmer's prison conditions. So what's the issue here?
NickC25 2y ago
> the legal system absolutely overreached. I see your bad faith argument, and let me respond with mine: The legal system absolutely UNDERreached here. Think otherwise? You got kids? Let's do a little experiment.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> so the prosecution got what they asked for No, that's false. The jury found actual damages, and the judge awarded punitive damages, both on the facts presented by the plaintiffs because there was nothing else to consider, but the plaintiffs were not simply awarded what they asked for.

wakawaka28 2y ago

The plaintiffs famously asked for over a trillion dollars, more than the GDP of most countries. So they didn't get what they asked for, even if they got more than they should have in the end.