Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on August 05, 2022, 06:44:40 PM
-
Finding that Sandy Hook was not a hoax, A jury awarded $4.1 million in compensatory damages yesterday and just now $45.2 million in punitive damages against Alex Jones.
-
He was a moron for saying that, but $50 million? This is a big part of what's wrong with our "gimme stuff!" litigious society, the ambulance chasing lawyers that promote it, and the juries that condone it.
-
Everything I've seen about this trial tells me it's just another political show.
(https://media.patriots.win/post/6KnXn8ws.jpeg)
-
He went way too far with the Sandy Hook was a hoax stuff. Perhaps not 45mil too far but too far never the less.
I can only imagine what the parents of a kid at SH feel though
-
And... How much did he make in the past year or so?
-
He went way too far with the Sandy Hook was a hoax stuff. Perhaps not 45mil too far but too far never the less.
I can only imagine what the parents of a kid at SH feel though
Is there some link to what he said that was different from all the other conspiracy stuff on that incident? That stuff started within days if not hours of the event.
Second, he is media. Based on what we have seen the mainstream media get away with the last 10 years, I can't imagine what he did was worse.
-
A mouthy moron spouts nonsense, and his idiotic rants cause DAMAGE to people in the amount of TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars? :facepalm:
-
A mouthy moron spouts nonsense, and his idiotic rants cause DAMAGE to people in the amount of TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars? :facepalm:
But ... but ... he hurted their FEELZ!!!!
The parents accused Jones of telling lies. The problem is: no matter what he said, it wasn't a lie if he believed it when he said it. From the little I have read about this case, it doesn't appear that the parents in any way established that he didn't believe what he was saying at the time he said it.
-
the quartering has an interesting point! :cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFly3Zn6jUQ
I can't stand that bloated worm, but Jones is no more of jackwagon than many others
-
A mouthy moron spouts nonsense, and his idiotic rants cause DAMAGE to people in the amount of TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars? :facepalm:
What does Morning Joe have to do with this thread?
-
the quartering has an interesting point! :cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFly3Zn6jUQ
I can't stand that bloated worm, but Jones is no more of jackwagon than many others
If the SH parents are due $45mil in punitive damages for Alex Jones then Kyle Rittenhouse should be a billionaire once the litigation is over.
-
If the SH parents are due $45mil in punitive damages for Alex Jones then Kyle Rittenhouse should be a billionaire once the litigation is over.
Donald Trump.
-
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/deliberations-resume-in-trial-over-jones-sandy-hook-lies/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_f&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3VaXujhI6a-y8-s9LujvHN5bDezvU5K12842Je_QR_D2Zl2n-j5Xjek2U#Echobox=1665604934
The jury thinks he should pay $ 965 million.
-
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/deliberations-resume-in-trial-over-jones-sandy-hook-lies/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_f&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3VaXujhI6a-y8-s9LujvHN5bDezvU5K12842Je_QR_D2Zl2n-j5Xjek2U#Echobox=1665604934
The jury thinks he should pay $ 965 million.
So eight people who'd never see 10 million dollars in their lifetime were "damaged" by having their feelings hurt to an average of over 100 million dollars apiece?
Truly, we ARE living in Clown World.
-
The amount is silly but Jones certainly deserves to be separated from every penny he made (and then some) from peddling his fake news about that tragedy. Those families went through something incredibly terrible and he made money by lying about them, doxxing them, and inspiring his craziest followers to stalk and harass them for years. He's scum.
-
The amount is silly but Jones certainly deserves to be separated from every penny he made (and then some) from peddling his fake news about that tragedy. Those families went through something incredibly terrible and he made money by lying about them, doxxing them, and inspiring his craziest followers to stalk and harass them for years. He's scum.
IMO, Jones was stating his opinion just like everyone else in media. He doesn't deserve to get sued for it anymore than the rest of the media (many of whom pedal lies on a daily basis).
-
As a professional crisis actor, my feelings are mixed.
-
I tend to think Jones knew exactly what he was doing. He fired up his retarded listeners with things he knew were bullshit to milk money from them. The result of that was things like this:
Mark Barden testified that conspiracy theorists urinated on the grave of his 7-year-old son, Daniel, and threatened to dig up the coffin
I have seen reports of rape and death threats mailed to victims homes. Homes, it bears mentioning, that the aholes had the address of because of Jones and his show.
I very rarely see any of Jones' show, but the segments I've seen have all been wildly incorrect, in some cases proven wrong in the very video or story he's supposedly commentating on. I suspect Jones doesn't have a billion dollars, but the world will be a better place if he's never heard from again.
-
Finding that Sandy Hook was not a hoax, A jury awarded $4.1 million in compensatory damages yesterday and just now $45.2 million in punitive damages against Alex Jones.
After all the other awards are added in, Jones owes nearly $1 billion.
https://news.yahoo.com/alex-jones-hit-965-million-194830979.html
-
I worry about the precedent...
Will they next go after someone just a little less crazy?
And then someone else?
Weaponized courts.
-
I kind of agree with both Dogmush's and Mech's last posts, even if they sound like they're kind of opposite of each other.
I think Alex Jones is an ass who needed to be sued in the same way I recently called elsewhere for the people harassing the Colorado baker to be sued (though admittedly I called for a ridiculous amount for effect in my argument, they need to be sued for an amount that means something). Alex Jones should have been sued for an amount that means something in the real world.
I looked up his net worth, reported as $40 million. A billion dollar settlement is cartoonish here. A $20 million settlement would have been a real world number that actually affected him, if you believe that he should be severely punished for what he did.
Which leads into where I agree with Mech: There are dozens and dozens of MSM "journalists" who have done the same thing Jones has done. Worse, because Jones is just a loudmouth celebrity. Journalists hide behind their occupation as "truth tellers" while telling outrageous lies that detrimentally affect - even ruin - innocent people. They don't deserve a pass anymore than Jones does. One might include every Harridan that appears on The View. They have detrimentally affected way more people than Jones ever has.
-
IMO, Jones was stating his opinion just like everyone else in media. He doesn't deserve to get sued for it anymore than the rest of the media (many of whom pedal lies on a daily basis).
This.
The few - very few - times I've seen or heard Alex Jones I recognized he was spouting utterly asinine nonsense. But I see that as no different than what people in the media do every day of the week on CNN, MSDNC, the Huffington Post, and so forth and so on.
Harmful? What about the actions of people like (former) NY Gov. Cuomo, which were directly responsible for the deaths of 10,000 elderly nursing home residents? Or the shut downs of schools and businesses in various states causing harm to both the economy and the development of millions of children?
I could go on, but Alex Jones is small fry by comparison.
-
I kind of agree with both Dogmush's and Mech's last posts, even if they sound like they're kind of opposite of each other.
I think Alex Jones is an ass who needed to be sued in the same way I recently called elsewhere for the people harassing the Colorado baker to be sued (though admittedly I called for a ridiculous amount for effect in my argument, they need to be sued for an amount that means something). Alex Jones should have been sued for an amount that means something in the real world.
I looked up his net worth, reported as $40 million. A billion dollar settlement is cartoonish here. A $20 million settlement would have been a real world number that actually affected him, if you believe that he should be severely punished for what he did.
Which leads into where I agree with Mech: There are dozens and dozens of MSM "journalists" who have done the same thing Jones has done. Worse, because Jones is just a loudmouth celebrity. Journalists hide behind their occupation as "truth tellers" while telling outrageous lies that detrimentally affect - even ruin - innocent people. They don't deserve a pass anymore than Jones does. One might include every Harridan that appears on The View. They have detrimentally affected way more people than Jones ever has.
This ^^^^^
With a comment
"I looked up his net worth, reported as $40 million. A billion dollar settlement is cartoonish here. A $20 million settlement would have been a real world number that actually affected him, if you believe that he should be severely punished for what he did."
They don't want to punish him they want to destroy him. Bury him in a debt grave so deep he will never see the light of day again.
Now that said, what do you think the settlement would have been if he was a leftist or even if there would have been one? Have the media talking heads and politicians who were demanding photos of the dead children be publicized been sued?
Edit: Whoops Got stuck on the term settlement.
Replace settlement with verdict awarded in the question.
-
They don't want to punish him they want to destroy him. Bury him in a debt grave so deep he will never see the light of day again.
Now that said, what do you think the settlement would have been if he was a leftist or even if there would have been one?
I'm not going to make assumptions about the jury as I don't know who they are, but I don't think the people suing him (parents of murdered children) care as much about his political stances. They're suing him for what he said about them and their children and, yes, I do believe they want to bury him in debt for what he did to them. I suspect he will suffer far less than they have, at least in this life.
-
I'm not going to make assumptions about the jury as I don't know who they are, but I don't think the people suing him (parents of murdered children) care as much about his political stances. They're suing him for what he said about them and their children and, yes, I do believe they want to bury him in debt for what he did to them. I suspect he will suffer far less than they have, at least in this life.
My question has to do with the settlement not whether or not he should have sued in the first place.
Edit: Whoops, Replace settlement with verdict awarded in the question.
-
My question has to do with the settlement not whether or not he was sued in the first place
It was not a settlement. The two sides did not agree on an amount to resolve the case. It is a verdict awarded by the jury.
-
A $20 million settlement would have been a real world number that actually affected him
Twenty million sounds appropriate (as half of the damn fool's net worth) But $10 million is hardly enough compensation for the talented attorneys who brokered the whole charade.
-
It was not a settlement. The two sides did not agree on an amount to resolve the case. It is a verdict awarded by the jury.
Whoops you're right. Got stuck on the term settlement.
Replace settlement with verdict awarded in the question.
-
I'm not going to make assumptions about the jury as I don't know who they are, but I don't think the people suing him (parents of murdered children) care as much about his political stances. They're suing him for what he said about them and their children and, yes, I do believe they want to bury him in debt for what he did to them. I suspect he will suffer far less than they have, at least in this life.
From what I heard (I did not watch the trial), the case was decided based on what other people said that he said. In the Texas trial, he wasn't allowed to present clips of his own show that might disagree with the edited clips the prosecution presented or maybe show he later changed his mind and possibly apologized. The judge tied their hands a bit from what I heard. Jones was on Crowder today. He claims he has no connection to the people who harassed the victims. Typically, that shouldn't mean he is responsible for their actions. I am sure appeals will eventually happen. I have heard you have to put some of the money in bond before appealing in some cases. Not sure about these.
IMO, the amusing part of all this is Alex Jones has been banned from every internet platform. This lawsuit has put him in the news and has probably let to more people hearing him speak who never heard him before. The left could just ignore him, but they aren't capable of that. Hell, I never watched him before he was banned. Now I have seen him on other shows and I think more people of aware of Infowars than ever before. I don't think this will shut him up or prevent him from continuing his show.
-
From what I heard (I did not watch the trial), the case was decided based on what other people said that he said. In the Texas trial, he wasn't allowed to present clips of his own show that might disagree with the edited clips the prosecution presented or maybe show he later changed his mind and possibly apologized. The judge tied their hands a bit from what I heard. Jones was on Crowder today. He claims he has no connection to the people who harassed the victims. Typically, that shouldn't mean he is responsible for their actions. I am sure appeals will eventually happen. I have heard you have to put some of the money in bond before appealing in some cases. Not sure about these.
I actually have not even seen his side of the story, so I may be pre or wrongly judging him myself. I've only seen what the MSM has wanted me to see.
-
I actually have not even seen his side of the story, so I may be pre or wrongly judging him myself. I've only seen what the MSM has wanted me to see.
Rekieta Law covered both trials if you want to see them. Nick Rekieta is entertaining, but I cant' listen to his multi-hour streams very often. Too much other content to watch.
My main issue with this is if it is okay to sue him solely for saying distasteful opinions, does that mean it is okay to sue anyone who has an opinion on the internet? I get that some people seem seem to hate the guy, but that doesn't mean he should get dragged into court solely for his speech. We have already seen that courts don't hold the mainstream media to this standard. Cases against them get thrown out easily.
-
Rekieta Law covered both trials if you want to see them. Nick Rekieta is entertaining, but I cant' listen to his multi-hour streams very often. Too much other content to watch.
My main issue with this is if it is okay to sue him solely for saying distasteful opinions, does that mean it is okay to sue anyone who has an opinion on the internet? I get that some people seem seem to hate the guy, but that doesn't mean he should get dragged into court solely for his speech. We have already seen that courts don't hold the mainstream media to this standard. Cases against them get thrown out easily.
That is not what he was sued for.
He was sued for defamation. What exactly defamation requires varies by state, but the general rule is: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. You can believe, as I'm sure Alex does that his fault didn't rise to negligence, but that was the main question before the jury, and they disagree.
Personally I think he knew he was lying and didn't care because it dragged in the infowars clicks, but I wasn't on the jury either.
In any case, you can still say distasteful opinions, but you can't slander people. Had what hew was saying been true, no matter how distasteful, he'd have been fine.
-
It is obvious from your comments above that you have a personal dislike/hatred of Jones.
I wouldn't consider it personal, I have no connection to him or those he defamed. I'll admit that I do find it particularly heinous that he targeted grieving parents of young children and that significantly lowers my opinion of him.
My main issue with this is if it is okay to sue him solely for saying distasteful opinions, does that mean it is okay to sue anyone who has an opinion on the internet?
I think there is a line between opinion and defamation that can be murky. I don't think this case was on the edge of that line - he flagrantly and repeatedly crossed it even after he knew better because it was making him money. The plaintiffs were able to show real-world harm that happened as a result and that is one of the key items that is missing from many defamation claims.
-
That is not what he was sued for.
He was sued for defamation. What exactly defamation requires varies by state, but the general rule is: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. You can believe, as I'm sure Alex does that his fault didn't rise to negligence, but that was the main question before the jury, and they disagree.
Personally I think he knew he was lying and didn't care because it dragged in the infowars clicks, but I wasn't on the jury either.
In any case, you can still say distasteful opinions, but you can't slander people. Had what hew was saying been true, no matter how distasteful, he'd have been fine.
I get the impression the judges and juries agreed with those last statements whether they could prove it or not.
Regardless of being able to show damages as Dittohead mentioned, I don't think this comes anywhere close to the standard that the MSM has been held to. Maybe they have better lawyers. Oh well, just my opinion, so sue me. =D
Timcast IRL posted a video talking about it. He thought actual damages were justified, but the punitive damages were stupid and just make it more likely those people will never see a dime. He said the lawyers were telling the jury to make the judgement so high it will destroy Jones. IMO, that is nuts.
-
Meaningless judgement. Jones can't pay it will never be able to. The only "people"* that will get pId are the lawyers.
* I don't really consider lawyers as a species as being people.
-
Everything I've seen about this trial tells me it's just another political show.
Everything I've seen since has reinforced my previous comment.
Here's the Viva/Barnes summary of this show trial:
https://youtu.be/iDnYVPq7Q4c?t=373
Our legal system is broken.
-
. . . In the Texas trial, he wasn't allowed to present clips of his own show that might disagree with the edited clips the prosecution presented or maybe show he later changed his mind and possibly apologized. The judge tied their hands a bit from what I heard . . .
If what you heard here is true, it's very disturbing. (I still don't like Alex Jones, but I like kangaroo courts even less.)
-
Everything I've seen since has reinforced my previous comment.
Here's the Viva/Barnes summary of this show trial:
https://youtu.be/iDnYVPq7Q4c?t=373
Our legal system is broken.
Wow. At two hours, I don't have the time this minute to watch the whole thing, but I ran through the "most replayed" parts, and my opinion on this is changing. Similar to Hank, maybe not in support of Jones, but in dislike of a broken system. This is sounding like railroading.
-
Has there been any attempt to tie him to Jan 6?
-
The few - very few - times I've seen or heard Alex Jones I recognized he was spouting utterly asinine nonsense. But I see that as no different than what people in the media do every day of the week on CNN, MSDNC, the Huffington Post, and so forth and so on.
The mainstream misinformation media.
-
Has there been any attempt to tie him to Jan 6?
Not sure about in the trial, but Yes. I don't know much about it, but I heard he was at Trump's rally, but not at the Capitol.
-
Not sure about in the trial, but Yes. I don't know much about it, but I heard he was at Trump's rally, but not at the Capitol.
He was at the Capitol, but he was standing in the back of his Hummer with a megaphone telling people that it was a setup and not to go in.
ETA the side of the story that the msm won't tell you:
https://79days.news/watch?id=5ff74f7d1669d333f2b28be4
-
I will never understand why people use videos to explain political\legal procedure stuff like this where visuals aren't necessary.
Unless they are trying to persuade more than inform, then it's the perfect format.
If anyone has links to read about problems with these trials I would love to check them out.
-
I will never understand why people use videos to explain political\legal procedure stuff like this where visuals aren't necessary.
Unless they are trying to persuade more than inform, then it's the perfect format.
If anyone has links to read about problems with these trials I would love to check them out.
I don't see anything written. Even the stuff I found that appears to be against Jones is just political grandstanding by attorneys with little actual meat from the trial.
I saw a few things that jogged my memory. Not much.
1. He said he didn't have any text messages about Sandy Hook. His lawyer mistakenly sent a copy of his entire phone and they found a couple of texts mentioning it. I don't think the texts said anything big, but the judge took that badly.
2. In the Texas trial, the plaintiff lawyers played edited videos to prove he said what they claimed. Jones said in an interview that they were not allowed to play their own videos to refute that.
3. The judge (at least in the Texas trial) ruled they could not use free speech as a defense in trial. There may have been other limits, but that stuck out.
-
Free speech is not a defense against slander, so I'm not surprised that was ruled out.
The article I saw said that Jones was not allowed to show his own videos to counter the plaintiff's videos because his team refused to comply with the court rules on discovery to admit the evidence. If that's the case, it's his own fault. (or his lawyers)
-
I saw a few things that jogged my memory. Not much.
1. Judges don't tend to like it when defendants withhold relevant documents during discovery.
2. Can't really comment without more info, especially if Jones is the only source on this claim.
3. There were a LOT of courtroom antics from Jones that judge put up with. A similar thing is going on right now with the guy who drove into the Christmas parade, although he appears to be much crazier than Jones. Judges will put up with a lot but at some point their patience wears thin. I know there was a point, probably multiple, where the judge made clear that he needed to stop ranting about completely unrelated topics and answer the question (or don't answer, but then be quiet). Since this was a civil suit between private citizens, I can see how the relevance of the 1st amendment might be limited and how the judge may have to remind Jones of that... repeatedly.
-
Free speech is not a defense against slander, so I'm not surprised that was ruled out.
The article I saw said that Jones was not allowed to show his own videos to counter the plaintiff's videos because his team refused to comply with the court rules on discovery to admit the evidence. If that's the case, it's his own fault. (or his lawyers)
From the tiny amount I saw of the trial his lawyers made the Keystone Cops look like well organized and professional police.
-
I will never understand why people use videos to explain political\legal procedure stuff like this where visuals aren't necessary.
Unless they are trying to persuade more than inform, then it's the perfect format.
If anyone has links to read about problems with these trials I would love to check them out.
Years ago I preferred talk radio over text format, That way I can listen while doing something else. That continues with either video or podcasts that can be downloaded and played later at a convenient time and you usually don't have to watch, in fact videos like the Viva/Barnes I posted there's really no point to the video, just the audio. Also, text online can and has easily been modified by those that control the servers, it's much tougher to do that with A/V.
-
i have an old friend, he is still quite sure that jones was right and that the shooting was fake and that there are crisis actors at these events ...
jones ruins serious conversations about real world problems
I think jones is some kind of asset to some state agency .... the enemies like china or putin or ours or maybe even all three or gawd only knows , oddly enough tho I really like some of the alt media he supported ... sav says, millennial millie, paul joseph watson
-
Free speech is not a defense against slander, so I'm not surprised that was ruled out.
The article I saw said that Jones was not allowed to show his own videos to counter the plaintiff's videos because his team refused to comply with the court rules on discovery to admit the evidence. If that's the case, it's his own fault. (or his lawyers)
In law, we talk about client control problems, where the client does not follow legal advice or the recommendations of their counsel. I would not at all be surprised if Mr. Jones was selective in terms of which advice he followed from his lawyers. That is often to the detriment of the client, when they lose the case or are sanctioned by the court.
-
I think jones is some kind of asset to some state agency .... the enemies like china or putin or ours or maybe even all three or gawd only knows , oddly enough tho I really like some of the alt media he supported ... sav says, millennial millie, paul joseph watson
A conspiracy theory that infowars is government controlled conspiracy theories. A conspirception if you will.
[Insert spinning top here]
-
i have an old friend, he is still quite sure that jones was right and that the shooting was fake and that there are crisis actors at these events ...
jones ruins serious conversations about real world problems
I think jones is some kind of asset to some state agency .... the enemies like china or putin or ours or maybe even all three or gawd only knows , oddly enough tho I really like some of the alt media he supported ... sav says, millennial millie, paul joseph watson
I would with that. He says a lot of words, but rarely takes time to lay out all the facts or actually show the evidence he claims to have. A number of things you can look up and he is close to correct. Mostly the result is he is partially right and exaggerating all or part. I have tried to listen to the Infowars show, but I usually end up moving on after a few minutes. One of the people doing shows sometimes does that "I am just asking questions" BS which is fine sometimes, but when the answer is obvious, it is evasive or shows ignorance.
-
A conspiracy theory that infowars is government controlled conspiracy theories. A conspirception if you will.
[Insert spinning top here]
I have heard him talk about people that were helping him. Provided him monetary help to keep Infowars going and told him they would help as much as they needed. Might be some fan who is rich or it could be someone connected keeping the opposition funded. [tinfoil]
-
A conspiracy theory that infowars is government controlled conspiracy theories. A conspirception if you will.
[Insert spinning top here]
A guy I know has been saying that about him for years.
-
i have an old friend, he is still quite sure that jones was right and that the shooting was fake and that there are crisis actors at these events ...
jones ruins serious conversations about real world problems
I think jones is some kind of asset to some state agency .... the enemies like china or putin or ours or maybe even all three or gawd only knows , oddly enough tho I really like some of the alt media he supported ... sav says, millennial millie, paul joseph watson
There were rumors of an FBI connection floating around during President Trump's term. Being a cointelpro asset wouldn't surprise at all with his consistent track record od taking anything real and slathering it with utterly preposterous bullshit.
-
Did they ever demonstrate that Alex jones knowingly lied, versus just believing something false?
Because I know lots of conservatives think some of these mass shootings are false flags (not me- yet).
-
Our government has lied to us, the media has lied to us and Alex Jones has told lies.
They are all confirmed liars.
I just don't have time to vet thoroughly what they have say. So as liars I question and doubt what any of them have to say about anything.
-
Our government has lied to us, the media has lied to us and Alex Jones has told lies.
They are all confirmed liars.
I just don't have time to vet thoroughly what they have say. So as liars I question and doubt what any of them have to say about anything.
I make sure and listen to the ones they try to shut up.
I don't recall who said it, but "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
-
Man, that inflation is worse than I thought...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-21/sandy-hook-families-seek-2-75-trillion-from-alex-jones
-
This is what the dems want to do to gun companies
-
Did they ever demonstrate that Alex jones knowingly lied, versus just believing something false?
Because I know lots of conservatives think some of these mass shootings are false flags (not me- yet).
What I heard was that since the judge issued a default judgement over the failure to turnover all the text messages, there never really was a trial at least the last one. So some would say no.
-
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/alex-jones-lawyer-faces-discipline-for-disclosing-confidential-medical-records-of-sandy-hook-parents/
There can be teeth to violating HIPAA.
-
Not unexpected
Alex Jones files for bankruptcy after Sandy Hook verdict
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63837309