Judge rules Alex Jones can't use bankruptcy to avoid paying $1.1 billion to Sandy Hook families | CNN Business

submitted by ActuallyNot from edition.cnn.com

all 37 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

If people deserved money for bad things said about them, Jones would be a trillionaire.

[–]Site_rly_sux 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Not quite.

What Jones did to the Sandy Hook parents,

  • targeting them on-air once per month for a decade

  • sending his staff to disrupt their memorial events

  • reading out their addresses on air

Etc etc

This was a malicious campaign against private individuals, that really fucked their lives.

On the other hand, sure, people say things about Jones, but he's a public figure. He has a platform from which to respond to allegations.

When the Young Turks claimed that Alex personally sent child porn to the Sandy Hook parents, Alex sued TYT in court and got a retraction. So, Alex is absolutely aware that he can use the same laws in his favor. Alex Jones is "out there" suing people who slander him, and winning.

Unfortunately for Jones, what other people say about him, is nowhere near the severity of what he did to the sandy hook families.

And not just them, Alex is also in court for slandering someone called Marcel Fontaine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/business/media/infowars-lawsuit-parkland-shooting.html

After the parkland shooting, a random 4chan post claimed Fontaine was behind the shooting - and within minutes, Infowars were repeating the claim on-air. So they're also being sued for that, too, just lifting defamatory fakes directly from 4chan, as Infowars did and continue to do.

So it's not the same at all.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

In other words, he did what the likes of CNN and other MSM do on a daily basis to other folks.

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

No. CNN is not embarking on a decades-long campaign of organised, personal harassment against private individuals.

And when cnn are wrong, they admit fault and publish a retraction.

On the other hand, Alex Jones' business empire is based on lying. He can never admit fault. He can never retract, or else the wheels fall off. And he targets private individuals, not public figures.

Alex doesn't pay what he owes. He drags his victims through years and years of stalling and obfuscations. CNN didn't do that, afaik.

There's really no comparison. CNN have staff layers, in-house counsel, and they produce news content to show 3rd party ads against.

Alex Jones is financially incapable of telling the truth, he accepts no advice, he fired a dozen competent lawyers because they caused him cognitive dissonance. And he produces fake content about the globalists attacking your penis so he can sell you his ultra male DNA force concoctions. No comparison really

[–]NastyWetSmear 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

And when cnn are wrong, they admit fault and publish a retraction.

I was with you through all this until here.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What are you thinking?

CNN correct and retract their stories all the time. Literally all the time, major publishers will put "this story was updated" in one way or another.

If you're seriously telling me that you believe CNN do not publish corrections and retractions, then ... seriously what are you even thinking?

It's a legal thing, by the way, during libel or slander cases (or in Infowars case, malicious harassment). The punishment is weakened if the publisher corrects/retracts.

I'll give you a great example -

Alex Jones told a big lie about Chobani yoghurt.

Chobani Yogurt sued Infowars.

Infowars put out a retraction

And as a result, legally, Chobani couldn't go after Infowars for serious damages like the sandy hook families

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/alex-jones-chobani-lawsuit.html

Infowars had the wherewithal to take steps to minimize their legal exposure, by publishing a retraction.....but you're telling me CNN with all their lawyers don't? What are you even thinking

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Does it matter though? News publishes stories like "John Doe of Tinseltown accused of rape" all the time and after he's been fired and or forced to resign from his job they may later publish a "retraction" in the form of a clarification that the accusation held no water and was unceremoniously thrown out. But in the court of public opinion the damage is done by then.

It's not a false story either. It's not wrong to say that someone was accused of something. It reflects more a problem with our society and the tendency to engage in mob justice than anything. But I can't sit around lamenting that. I do think news agencies need to take more responsibility for the damage to people's reputation that reporting on baseless accusations makes.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not literally all the time. You've taken my statement as: "They never do" instead of the intended: "They do when it's something they don't mind admitting, but when it's a big lie that they are purposely trying to present as fact, they choose not to."

They have a bias, and they continue to display it. They do print withdrawals sometimes, but they also don't when it suits them even when they have been publicly displayed to be factually false. Maybe most importantly, they do so when it suits their bias and continue to run with stories they categorically know to be false. If you want to go example by example, we can all day, but I'm sure you're smart enough to know there are important examples available. You could look at most of Trump's time in office or the run up to his election and find stories that, to this day, remain unapologetically on their pages or have been quietly removed without apology or correction.

I'm sure Infowars is a cluster fuck. As I said, I was with you all the way until that statement - But to suggest that news sites, especially American, politically aligned ones like CNN, retract and correct when their agenda is in question?... C'mon, be intellectually honest and fair. Drag Infowars for their mistakes, but don't pretend like CNN, your go-to-Trump is a Russian plant network, is the pillar of honesty in reporting.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Loads of comparisons. Piers Morgan faked photos and hacked dead kids phones. Never paid a penny to anyone, still has a career. You just think Jones should pay while other media shouldn't. If Jones issued a retraction, you still would back a witch hunt. Media bias 🖕

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

CNN is a very different institution than the tabloids Morgan edited.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're already moving goalposts.

Alex Jones lied about them once per month for a decade, sent people to their memorials and homes, did all the things I mentioned.

On the other hand, Piers Morgan was in charge of NOTW when Millie Dowler's voicemail was hacked.

There's a pretty fucking big difference between listening to a dead girl's voicemail, and the sustained campaign of money-making harassment that Jones did.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

At what point would that justify a $1.1billion bullshit punitive fine? There is no basis for the value whatsoever. Needless to say, you are exaggerating about his 'harassment campaign', but even so, the man is being charged and fined for what is ultimately an opinion and the same freedom which all press have. To say this is criminal essentially says all press should be held accountable for their bullshit. But you already think MSM's shit doesn't stink as they've "never" said a bad work without a golden retraction. 🙄

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At what point would that justify a $1.1billion bullshit punitive fine?

It accumulated as he kept up the harassment of the grieving families, while his audience sent them death threats, and child pornography over the years. And then dragging out the court case with repeated failure to show our sending someone to depositions that couldn't answer questions.

And it accumulated as it was shown that he knew that he made more money with this story than others, even he showed no remorse for his impact on his victims, instead ranting against them and the court on his show.

Needless to say, you are exaggerating about his 'harassment campaign'

No. Several of the families sold their homes and moved to try to feel safe. Some of them multiple times. This is actual harassment.

the man is being charged and fined for what is ultimately an opinion and the same freedom which all press have.

No. He made knowingly false claims, with actual malice, causing actual fear and actual distress on people who had lost their child or family member. He did it often because his analysis showed that he made more money that way.

It's wasn't an opinion. It was a calculated lie.

To say this is criminal essentially says all press should be held accountable for their bullshit.

No one is saying the harassment campaign is criminal. This was a civil trial.

He did lie under oath which is perjury, but that hasn't been charged. And he did have personal medical records of some of his victims. Obtaining them certainly involved a crime, probably by him.

But the damages are due to his defamation.

[–]blackpoop321 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If only they didn't flatten the entire site and didn't destroy all video evidence... it might not look like a false-flag as much.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

https://conspiracies.win/p/17rSsYzIjD/dawn-hochsprung-sandy-hook/c/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4FiulQE-AY

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Not many people have had bad things said about them that are so justified.

[–]HonkyTonky 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

How will we ever really know if the frogs are gay or not?

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At least he's concerned about pollution ... on some level.

[–]Drewski 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is their newest (and quite effective) tactic to censor speech. As with the 2018 social media censorship crackdown, Jones is canary in the coal mine.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

More a canary in a coal mine for contempt of court.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A clever currency exchange, and he'll be back in business.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

hmyes it's censoring speech to give hundreds of people relatively small settlements for a decade of malicious harassment on a national scale

[–]ID10T 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guess exposing Jeffrey Epstein the freaks at Bohemian Grove finally came back to bite him.

[–]IMissPorn 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

They really have it out for him, don't they? He must be on to something (or several things).

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

His site analytics, revealed during the trial, showed a healthy overlap between sandy hook conspiracy enjoyers, and the punters who were buying his survival gear.

He (really his dad, David Jones) made a business decision to re-stock survival gear, up the advertisements, and keep on pumping sandy hook conspiracy to make sales. That's what he was "on to", as revealed by his submissions in court.

Then, after losing in court, he refused to pay. Nobody "has it out for him". Alex Jones did horrible stupid things, and now he faces the consequences of the stupid things he did.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This is a good summary of the legal situation.

Jones also engaged in delaying tactics to waste the court's time and strain the 's costs that succeeded in dragging out the trial for over a decade until the judges entered summary judgements against him for failing to comply with discovery or show up to hearings.

And he lied on the stand, and he had the medical records of some of the victims he was abusing on his phone, which no one should have, and we should see criminal proceedings about how that was obtained.

Funny thing was, he was more concerned from the phone records that he'd sent a nude photo of his wife to Roger Stone, than the illegal stuff it showed. Possibly concerned that it might alienate the conversation part of his viewership.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was personally in the Austin court room to watch parts of the trial.

If you haven't found the Knowledge Fight podcast yet then I highly recommend it, they also have q&a episodes with the plaintiff's legal team.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Very cool, going down to the courtroom.

I do follow knowledge fight, and while they're enlightening about Alex Jone's BS (Such as when he's repeating someone else's story about an uncle who was in the army as if it was his uncle, or when they point out that he has only read the headline of the newspaper article that he uses as content for a 2 hour rant), I find that I don't generally have the interest in Alex Jones to sustain me through a whole Knowledge Fight episode.

When they had a lawyer or plaintiff on though, it holds my interest.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"They" being the parents and families of the victims of the sandy hook massacre?

What "several things" would concern them, do you think?

Isn't getting the death threats and harassment on top of their grieving enough?

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

On of the victims has cancer and is raising gofundme for her life saving cancer treatment.

Meanwhile Alex Jones owes her millions and refuses to pay. What if she dies while Jones plays with his dick in bankruptcy court? What a piece of trash individual

[–]EternalSunset 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Every single hospital in Gaza has been bombed by your jewish overlords and yet you are here running interference for them and pretending you care about people who need medical attention. Pick up a rifle, put on a diaper and go march in there you coward glownigger kike faggot. Or is attacking goyim on the internet with your underhanded tactics all you are good for?

[–]SoCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Our joke of a "justice" system...the case was just a clown show of non-standard court process.

[–]raven9 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Alex Jones is being targetted by the deep state for the same reason this site is. Their enemy is everyone who questions their lies.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Should have been a 1.1 million dollar fine. Jones will just ride this out for forever.

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

However, he can use the fact that he doesn't have $1.1 Billion to avoid paying the $1.1 Billion.

[–]HonkyTonky 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I am suing Alex Jones for 40 quintillion bitcoins because he said the frogs are gay.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The 'Justice(!) System' in the North American colonies has become a complete joke.