8 ms·

This is only a good point if you think that the fines that the banking executives paid in 2008 were sufficient. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone express tha

This is only a good point if you think that the fines that the banking executives paid in 2008 were sufficient. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone express that opinion. The fine here is fully justified. The lack of fines in 2008 is the problem, not this.

yucky 4y ago
>The fine here is fully justified. A billion dollar fine is justified because idiots read his blog and decided a baseless conspiracy theory seemed plausible? That's laughable. I didn't think I'd ever find myself on the same side of something as Alex Jones and yet here I am. These people lost their minds.
- tptacek 4y ago
  That's literally how tort damages work. The inverse of your logic would imply that defamation wouldn't be actionable at all; reputation damage, after all, concerns entirely what unrelated third parties do with your misstatements.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Yes because thinking a BILLION dollar fine is absurd for saying dumb shit online, clearly means there should be no torts at all. What it really means is for this fine to make sense, we need to start fining other people and companies TRILLIONS. I feel like I'm in an Austin Powers movie, or worse, on Reddit.
    - kasey_junk 4y ago
      What if he made 1.2 Billion off of his grift that attacked actual people? He isn’t going to jail (which seems like it should be in play to me). He’s just not able to keep any of his ill gotten gains. It’s really hard to feel sympathetic here.
      - yucky 4y ago
        We don't need to ask "what if" because we know he made nothing remotely close to a billion. So now what?
        tptacek 4y ago
        If the judgement holds, all his liquidatable assets will be seized and his wages will be garnished perpetually until the total amount is paid or he is put in the ground. Not super complicated, I don't think?
        yucky 4y ago
        I think you replied to the wrong comment, this response does not follow the post that was being replied to.
        pixl97 4y ago
        Jones will appeal and the amount will be dropped, probably nearly 10 fold, which puts the payout in a range that Jones company has made. It's like "babies first day in court" in this thread with all the ridiculous crap being said.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      It's not a BILLION. It's a BILLION divided by fifteen plaintiffs, which brings the per-plaintiff number to a high-but-precedented number. The total number is nosebleed-high because Jones managed to be culpable for one of the most egregious defamation cases in 50 years against more than a dozen people simultaneously. Also, because he boycotted the trial and lost it by default.
      - yucky 4y ago
        You say it's precedented, can you cite the precedence? The guy is/was a conspiracy blogger, that's it. You would think he destroyed the housing market or droned thousands of innocent children with that sort of fine. Which is what makes it so absurd.
        tptacek 4y ago
        Can I cite the precedent of an individual plaintiff winning more than $50MM in a civil judgement? Sure. Hulk Hogan won $115MM in the Gawker case.
        yucky 4y ago
        >Can I cite the precedent of an individual plaintiff winning more than $50MM in a civil judgement? No, can you cite a precedent for someone being ordered to pay almost a billion dollars for saying a mean thing on a blog. You said it's precedented, I was asking for the precedent.
        thwayunion 4y ago
        Oof. I'll do the sentence diagramming for you. OP said: "It's not a BILLION. It's a BILLION divided by fifteen plaintiffs, which brings the per-plaintiff number to a high-but-precedented number." Th adjective "precedented" modifies "number". In this sentence, "number" refers to the quantity "a BILLION divided by fifteen plaintiffs". Clearly, it's the per-plaintiff number that OP refers to as "precedented", not the total sum. Figuring out that "precedented" refers to 1B/15 in the above sentence requires roughly a fifth grade reading level. The fact that InfoWars has an audience is become less surprising by the comment.

yucky 4y ago

>The fine here is fully justified. A billion dollar fine is justified because idiots read his blog and decided a baseless conspiracy theory seemed plausible? That's laughable. I didn't think I'd ever find myself on the same side of something as Alex Jones and yet here I am. These people lost their minds.

tptacek 4y ago
That's literally how tort damages work. The inverse of your logic would imply that defamation wouldn't be actionable at all; reputation damage, after all, concerns entirely what unrelated third parties do with your misstatements.
- yucky 4y ago
  Yes because thinking a BILLION dollar fine is absurd for saying dumb shit online, clearly means there should be no torts at all. What it really means is for this fine to make sense, we need to start fining other people and companies TRILLIONS. I feel like I'm in an Austin Powers movie, or worse, on Reddit.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    What if he made 1.2 Billion off of his grift that attacked actual people? He isn’t going to jail (which seems like it should be in play to me). He’s just not able to keep any of his ill gotten gains. It’s really hard to feel sympathetic here.
    - yucky 4y ago
      We don't need to ask "what if" because we know he made nothing remotely close to a billion. So now what?
      - tptacek 4y ago
        If the judgement holds, all his liquidatable assets will be seized and his wages will be garnished perpetually until the total amount is paid or he is put in the ground. Not super complicated, I don't think?
        yucky 4y ago
        I think you replied to the wrong comment, this response does not follow the post that was being replied to.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        Jones will appeal and the amount will be dropped, probably nearly 10 fold, which puts the payout in a range that Jones company has made. It's like "babies first day in court" in this thread with all the ridiculous crap being said.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    It's not a BILLION. It's a BILLION divided by fifteen plaintiffs, which brings the per-plaintiff number to a high-but-precedented number. The total number is nosebleed-high because Jones managed to be culpable for one of the most egregious defamation cases in 50 years against more than a dozen people simultaneously. Also, because he boycotted the trial and lost it by default.
    - yucky 4y ago
      You say it's precedented, can you cite the precedence? The guy is/was a conspiracy blogger, that's it. You would think he destroyed the housing market or droned thousands of innocent children with that sort of fine. Which is what makes it so absurd.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Can I cite the precedent of an individual plaintiff winning more than $50MM in a civil judgement? Sure. Hulk Hogan won $115MM in the Gawker case.
        yucky 4y ago
        >Can I cite the precedent of an individual plaintiff winning more than $50MM in a civil judgement? No, can you cite a precedent for someone being ordered to pay almost a billion dollars for saying a mean thing on a blog. You said it's precedented, I was asking for the precedent.
        thwayunion 4y ago
        Oof. I'll do the sentence diagramming for you. OP said: "It's not a BILLION. It's a BILLION divided by fifteen plaintiffs, which brings the per-plaintiff number to a high-but-precedented number." Th adjective "precedented" modifies "number". In this sentence, "number" refers to the quantity "a BILLION divided by fifteen plaintiffs". Clearly, it's the per-plaintiff number that OP refers to as "precedented", not the total sum. Figuring out that "precedented" refers to 1B/15 in the above sentence requires roughly a fifth grade reading level. The fact that InfoWars has an audience is become less surprising by the comment.