11 ms·

> And killing the infowars brand means little in the short/long run. The real brand is Alex's name. It's not like his audience will suddenly not follow him to a

> And killing the infowars brand means little in the short/long run. The real brand is Alex's name. It's not like his audience will suddenly not follow him to a new show with a new name. This is absolutely true. Other media people that lost their job or channel, handle on various platforms, typically refresh to the same number of followers within a year or two.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> The real brand is Alex's name. It's not like his audience will suddenly not follow him to a new show with a new name. They get to garnish those profits, too.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  No bankruptcy resolves the debt. Otherwise there would be no point in a bankruptcy process.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    No, not necessarily, and not in this case. https://www.reuters.com/legal/alex-jones-cant-avoid-sandy-hook-verdicts-bankruptcy-judge-2023-10-19/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/alex-jones-cant-avoid-sandy-ho... > Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones cannot use his personal bankruptcy to escape paying at least $1.1 billion in defamation damages stemming from his repeated lies about the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, a U.S. bankruptcy judge ruled Thursday. > Bankruptcy can be used to wipe out debts and legal judgments, but not if they result from "willful or malicious injury" caused by the debtor, according to a decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston, Texas. Bankruptcies have all sorts of exceptions like this for fraud, student loans, child support, unpaid taxes, etc.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      Exactly. The intent of bankruptcy law is to benefit the economy by allowing people and corporations to take risks and start over. It's not to let them get away with defamation. So there's a line between healthy economic risk-taking (bankruptcy discharges) and bad behavior (bankruptcy doesn't affect that).
  - dumah 2y ago
    FTX creditors would like to have a word with you.
alwa 2y ago
It does seem likely to be true, although apparently, based on its bid, his affiliated company sees $3.5 million worth of extra value in keeping the Infowars brand and structure as opposed to going that route.
immibis 2y ago
Alex Jones told the court that Alex Jones was just a character he played, so that character should now belong to the bankruptcy estate and be sold off. If Alex Jones were to play Alex Jones on TV ever again, that would be a copyright violation against whoever owns the Alex Jones character.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> The real brand is Alex's name. It's not like his audience will suddenly not follow him to a new show with a new name. They get to garnish those profits, too.

ipaddr 2y ago
No bankruptcy resolves the debt. Otherwise there would be no point in a bankruptcy process.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  No, not necessarily, and not in this case. https://www.reuters.com/legal/alex-jones-cant-avoid-sandy-hook-verdicts-bankruptcy-judge-2023-10-19/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/alex-jones-cant-avoid-sandy-ho... > Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones cannot use his personal bankruptcy to escape paying at least $1.1 billion in defamation damages stemming from his repeated lies about the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, a U.S. bankruptcy judge ruled Thursday. > Bankruptcy can be used to wipe out debts and legal judgments, but not if they result from "willful or malicious injury" caused by the debtor, according to a decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston, Texas. Bankruptcies have all sorts of exceptions like this for fraud, student loans, child support, unpaid taxes, etc.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    Exactly. The intent of bankruptcy law is to benefit the economy by allowing people and corporations to take risks and start over. It's not to let them get away with defamation. So there's a line between healthy economic risk-taking (bankruptcy discharges) and bad behavior (bankruptcy doesn't affect that).
- dumah 2y ago
  FTX creditors would like to have a word with you.

alwa 2y ago

It does seem likely to be true, although apparently, based on its bid, his affiliated company sees $3.5 million worth of extra value in keeping the Infowars brand and structure as opposed to going that route.

immibis 2y ago

Alex Jones told the court that Alex Jones was just a character he played, so that character should now belong to the bankruptcy estate and be sold off. If Alex Jones were to play Alex Jones on TV ever again, that would be a copyright violation against whoever owns the Alex Jones character.