9 ms·

That's quite literally all that it is. Maybe you dont like it, I dont like it either, but Alex Jones's part in this was just speaking. The individuals doing the

That's quite literally all that it is. Maybe you dont like it, I dont like it either, but Alex Jones's part in this was just speaking. The individuals doing the harassment and making death threats should of course be punished. But holding someone accountable for the actions of hundreds of people they've never met is absurd. Did Alex Jones encourage the harassment? Did he tell his followers to go send death threats? If he did, I've certainly not seen it. And if he did, it would be a slightly different story. But speaking your incorrect opinion should not make you liable for the actions of a few deranged individuals who choose to act on that information in a negative way.

lesuorac 4y ago
> [1] Defendants’ latest malicious statements were part of a continuous pattern of five years of intentional and reckless harassment accomplished through dozens of disturbing video broadcasts, a relentless stream of recklessly false articles published on InfoWars.com, harassing social media content, as well as the encouragement, aid, and financial support to third-parties in furthering this 23 harassment. The lawsuit literally claims they (Alex Jones) encouraged the harassment. [1]: https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-07-31-Ps-First-Amended-Petition.pdf https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-...
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  The lawsuit can claims whatever it likes. I didn't say that the lawsuit never claimed it. I said that I haven't actually seen evidence of Alex Jones actively encouraging the harrasment. If you have that, please share.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Alex Jones could have argued that he didn't do that. He could have presented evidence. Instead, he tried to game the courts, refusing discovery and refusing to follow standard court procedures. That kind of game results in the courts assuming that the other side is factually correct, without them having to prove it. It's like your football team losing because they never bothered to take the field. Why did Jones take this approach? I see four possibilities, and they're all bad. 1. He didn't think the rules applied to him. 2. He thought the court system was corrupt enough that he couldn't get a fair trial. 3. He knew he was likely to lose on the facts anyway. 4. He thought that the publicity of "not cooperating with the system" (or whatever) would be more valuable than the cost of losing the case. Whatever the reason, he did this to himself. He threw away his chance to refute the claims against him, and the result is that the claims against him are regarded as true. Don't treat the courts as a show. They're not. There are real consequences for the kind of game Jones played.
    - hbrn 4y ago
      > He thought that the publicity of "not cooperating with the system" (or whatever) would be more valuable than the cost of losing the case. Sounds like he won. I can entertain a thought that given he's not going to pay it anyway, he actually wanted the fine to be as high as possible. > Whatever the reason, he did this to himself I don't think folks are pitying Alex Jones here. If he exploited judicial system to gain more publicity, this undermines the system. If judge/jury got emotional and gave him a "fuck you" fine, we shouldn't celebrate it, even if the guy is a total asshole. > Don't treat the courts as a show. They're not. There are real consequences It's not a show, and yet he got one. I'm not so sure about "real" consequences. Most folks seem to think that there isn't a difference between $500M and $1B fine.
root_axis 4y ago
> That's quite literally all that it is Using a media empire to sustain a campaign of harassment against innocent people is not the same thing as e.g. broadcasting lies about the safety of vaccines. > speaking your incorrect opinion should not make you liable for the actions It should when the target of your "incorrect opinion" is a private citizen being attacked because of your misinformation. Your flippant dismissal as "a few deranged individuals" does not match up with reality.

lesuorac 4y ago

> [1] Defendants’ latest malicious statements were part of a continuous pattern of five years of intentional and reckless harassment accomplished through dozens of disturbing video broadcasts, a relentless stream of recklessly false articles published on InfoWars.com, harassing social media content, as well as the encouragement, aid, and financial support to third-parties in furthering this 23 harassment. The lawsuit literally claims they (Alex Jones) encouraged the harassment. [1]: https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-07-31-Ps-First-Amended-Petition.pdf https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-...

CodeSgt 4y ago
The lawsuit can claims whatever it likes. I didn't say that the lawsuit never claimed it. I said that I haven't actually seen evidence of Alex Jones actively encouraging the harrasment. If you have that, please share.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Alex Jones could have argued that he didn't do that. He could have presented evidence. Instead, he tried to game the courts, refusing discovery and refusing to follow standard court procedures. That kind of game results in the courts assuming that the other side is factually correct, without them having to prove it. It's like your football team losing because they never bothered to take the field. Why did Jones take this approach? I see four possibilities, and they're all bad. 1. He didn't think the rules applied to him. 2. He thought the court system was corrupt enough that he couldn't get a fair trial. 3. He knew he was likely to lose on the facts anyway. 4. He thought that the publicity of "not cooperating with the system" (or whatever) would be more valuable than the cost of losing the case. Whatever the reason, he did this to himself. He threw away his chance to refute the claims against him, and the result is that the claims against him are regarded as true. Don't treat the courts as a show. They're not. There are real consequences for the kind of game Jones played.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    > He thought that the publicity of "not cooperating with the system" (or whatever) would be more valuable than the cost of losing the case. Sounds like he won. I can entertain a thought that given he's not going to pay it anyway, he actually wanted the fine to be as high as possible. > Whatever the reason, he did this to himself I don't think folks are pitying Alex Jones here. If he exploited judicial system to gain more publicity, this undermines the system. If judge/jury got emotional and gave him a "fuck you" fine, we shouldn't celebrate it, even if the guy is a total asshole. > Don't treat the courts as a show. They're not. There are real consequences It's not a show, and yet he got one. I'm not so sure about "real" consequences. Most folks seem to think that there isn't a difference between $500M and $1B fine.

root_axis 4y ago

> That's quite literally all that it is Using a media empire to sustain a campaign of harassment against innocent people is not the same thing as e.g. broadcasting lies about the safety of vaccines. > speaking your incorrect opinion should not make you liable for the actions It should when the target of your "incorrect opinion" is a private citizen being attacked because of your misinformation. Your flippant dismissal as "a few deranged individuals" does not match up with reality.