Infowars fighting attempted shutdown

a reply to: frogs453

I really wish I cared enough about Alex Jones to respond to your reply, but I don't. So...

Carry on.

edit - Or should I say...'Gloat on'

a reply to: frogs453

He owes the monetary compensation.

How does destroying a business turning over many millions a year help with that? It is more about destroying an independent media platform with the way things are going. This was not part of the ruling in the civil trial behind all this.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: frogs453

He owes the monetary compensation.

How does destroying a business turning over many millions a year help with that? It is more about destroying an independent media platform with the way things are going. This was not part of the ruling in the civil trial behind all this.

Liquidation actually means the families get less.
It is strange that the families are pushing for it instead of agreeing to millions a year in payments.

a reply to: kwaka

That's what happens through when you owe significant amounts of money that you cannot, or refuse to pay kwaka.

They liquidate businesses, seize assets, and repossess property.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Weird, I put absolutely no personal opinion in my post. You state you don't care but yet accuse me of gloating. It does appear you care very much.

a reply to: UKTruth

It is strange that the families are pushing for it instead of agreeing to millions a year in payments.

Not with the Biden crime family also in the background on this one.

Right after that frogs being gay bit he did on his show he immediately tries selling you water purifiers. Anyone can't see through the snack oil deserves to have their money stolen.

a reply to: andy06shake

a reply to: andy06shake

That's what happens through when you owe significant amounts of money that you cannot, or refuse to pay kwaka.

In Australia, the max fine for media misinformation is $2.7M or 2% of annual turnover. I have not heard of a corporation being fined 100x is annual turnover before. Is this common in America and got any examples?

I have heard of some Billion dollar fines with pharma in the past, works out to around 10% of the profits.

They liquidate businesses, seize assets, and repossess property.

It does happen. Even if the building and equipment does get scrapped, the information war will carry on.

One case here in Australia on a similar kind of scale involves James Hardy over asbestos. in 2007 James Hardy agreed to fund a $4 Billion compensation program for the victims of Asbestosis. At the time the company had net sales of about $1.5 Billion a year.

With a lot of victims that will go on for some time, killing the company is not in the interest of those that have been harmed. the business is still operating today, net sales was $4 Billion last year. Not all has gone to plan with the compensation fund, some got a lot while a lot got a little.

Sandy Hook was a very unexpected and traumatic event. Very much so for those directly involved, but also for the nation. The media blackout at the time helped stir up a lot of internet rumors. How some now equate Alex Jones as being the shooter and want to pin all their pain on him, I don't see any amount of money fixing that.

With what Alex has been through, expect he will approach a similar situation more differently next time. With or without Infowars.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: frogs453

I really wish I cared enough about Alex Jones to respond to your reply, but I don't. So...

Carry on.

edit - Or should I say...'Gloat on'

One need not care about the man at the center but the process and result which expands out from him.

Then see how that process has been applied elsewhere...and where it hasn't.

a reply to: JinMI

I'm open to this. Who is an example that you believe should have been civilly sued who has admittedly stated he knew what he was saying to his listeners was lies and his words caused multiple year real life harassment to multiple families, every time he repeated the lie? Who is still speaking with a large following.

And again, a civil lawsuit, in which the jury made the decision. This was not any federal or criminal charge.

But anyway, who do you believe did the same and did not face a civil lawsuit.

a reply to: frogs453

Every pundit on corporate media.

Now question to you. Can you justify 90 million dollars to an unnamed FBI agent?

a reply to: frogs453

Every pundit on corporate media.

Now question to you. Can you justify 90 million dollars to an unnamed FBI agent?

a reply to: JinMI

And you know of the victims of "every news pundit" who have faced years of harassment by individuals for specific lies the pundit admitted to, just to make money? Some who had to move it was so bad. Maybe contact them to file a civil suit.

90 million to William Aldenberg? Who also faced harassment? The jury determined amounts for each family. Ask them. They listened to and saw the testimony and evidence.

a reply to: frogs453

So by this logic all one needs it to appeal to emotion?

No actual monetary damage?

Let alone prove any of it.

Only reason you even care is because of feels. Not by any quantitative means.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: kwaka

I mean i liked the fellow when he broke all the Bohemian Club info and creation of care ceremony stuff.

But after the crap he choose to punt regarding Sandy Hook i really went off the fellow in question.

And then there was the turn the fecking frogs gay nonsense.

Or all that daft fake anger he chooses to project whilst attempting to promote and sell some rather spurious products.

Good riddance to bad rubbish really.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Remember and learn from the past or be doomed to repeat it.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Remember and learn from the past or be doomed to repeat it.

Sound advice for Alex Jones to follow really.

As to the Martin Niemöller spiel that's all very well.

But i dont really see what it has to do with the fact that Jones falsely claimed that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax, or that the the parents of the dead children were crisis actors.

a reply to: JinMI

Well actually, they had proof of much of the harassment, as noted in the trial with the police reports, the messages they received, etc.

But again, if all those news pundits have caused with lies, that they have admitted are lies and people harass you for years, you had to move it was so bad on your family, and you have documented proof of it, then certainly file a civil case. I certainly won't whine if a jury declares you're owed millions.

But actually you have not cited one case that is comparable. You just screeched about all news pundits. So I guess you can't back up your claim of that this was basicly some type of selective persecution because "others" aren't being sued.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

And you know of the victims of "every news pundit" who have faced years of harassment by individuals for specific lies the pundit admitted to, just to make money? Some who had to move it was so bad. Maybe contact them to file a civil suit.

90 million to William Aldenberg? Who also faced harassment? The jury determined amounts for each family. Ask them. They listened to and saw the testimony and evidence.

Why do people keep saying that they listened to anything? Alex Jones was found in default. His lawyers didn't put onna defense to the facts. The judge also through out Texas defamation law that says the defamed but be specifically named and both the FBI agent and 90% ofnthe families were never specifically named by Jones. One man (the dude who was laughing and joking before he walks up and starts crying in the microphone) was named by Jones and deserves pretty much all the damages.

a reply to: JinMI

Agreed, and this was my earlier point which seems to have gone over some people's head (lookin' at you, frog).