The Onion buys Infowars

[Bradskii]

That's kind of counter-intuitive to what the justice system is supposed to be for, is it not?

"Satisfying a bloodlust, making someone experience a misery, so it makes us feel better" is how we ended up with things like solitary confinement and the death penalty.

That's why we don't put Jones (I even feel like I need a shower after just typing his name) in a room with a couple of the fathers armed with baseball bats. In a thread on free will I'm arguing against retributive punishment. But gee, in his case it's a real tough position to maintain. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

From here: The Onion buys conspiracy theory site Infowars with plans to make it ‘very funny, very stupid’

'The satirical news outlet the Onion has purchased Infowars, the rightwing media platform run by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, at a court-ordered auction.

CEO Ben Collins confirmed this in a post on Bluesky on Thursday, writing: “The Onion, with the help of the Sandy Hook families, has purchased InfoWars. We are planning on making it a very funny, very stupid website. We have retained the services of some Onion and Clickhole Hall of Famers to pull this off.

In order to make the bid work, a lawyer representing the families told CNN that the families “agreed to forgo a portion of their recovery to increase the overall value of the Onion’s bid, enabling its success”.

“After surviving unimaginable loss with courage and integrity, they rejected Jones’s hollow offers for allegedly more money if they would only let him stay on the air because doing so would have put other families in harm’s way,” said Chris Mattei, an attorney for the families.

In a post on social media earlier this week, Mattei added that “the breakup of Infowars this week is just the start of Alex Jones’s lesson in accountability” and that the families “will go after his future income and any new Infowars owner acting as a vehicle for Jones’s continued control of the business”.

Looking forward to seeing what they do with it.

Ok. The Onion has occasionally been pretty good. Let's see what they do with the new resource.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's why we don't put Jones (I even feel like I need a shower after just typing his name) in a room with a couple of the fathers armed with baseball bats. In a thread on free will I'm arguing against retributive punishment. But gee, in his case it's a real tough position to maintain. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard.

But it's the same sentiment is it not?

It doesn't have to be as drastic as a sopranos style whacking in a cornfield.

It's still the same basic premise...

"This person did something I find to be awful...therefore, I want them to have to endure some sort of misery, because knowing that they're having a rough time will make ME feel better" is on the same spectrum.

 

[Bradskii]

But it's the same sentiment is it not?

It doesn't have to be as drastic as a sopranos style whacking in a cornfield.

It's still the same basic premise...

"This person did something I find to be awful...therefore, I want them to have to endure some sort of misery, because knowing that they're having a rough time will make ME feel better" is on the same spectrum.

It's been explained. It's a natural reaction. This is what we'd want. But our preference, in the cold light of day, is justice. Not retribution.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's been explained. It's a natural reaction. This is what we'd want. But our preference, in the cold light of day, is justice. Not retribution.

So do you think that the Alex Jones suit (particularly sweeping scope of the outcome) was justice? Or was that satisfying a public blood lust?

One of my main gripes with civil trials is that the standards are lower than in actual criminal trials, and are more prone to subjectivity.

While I can understand that he's a loon who subjected grieving families to additional stress and heartache...

A civil penalty of "Everything you have, your business, and everything you may earn in the future", to me, seems like if the act was that vile, it belonged in a criminal court where he could've been charged with something like incitement, harassment with intent to cause injury/death, or something of the sort. If what he did was so dangerous that it equates to a $1 billion dollar judgement, then it should be a criminal matter of some sort.

Perhaps it's time to consider making some of those infractions a matter of the criminal code instead of being confined to civil court, so that way the bar is higher in court, and the accused has access to some of the rights that a person in a criminal matter would have.

For instance, this one is a big sticking point for me:
Either a judge or a jury can decide a trial in a civil case. If the plaintiff is seeking money damages of more than $20, the Constitution requires a jury trial unless both parties waive this right.

Which means, Alex Jones (as the defendant in a civil trial) has no choice but to let a jury decide. Which, I'm sure it's not controversial to say this...there's not going to be such a thing as a "neutral jury of his peers". Everyone has a strong opinion of him (mostly bad), and in certain jurisdictions, virtually any case you could bring him up on would be a slam dunk for the plaintiffs.


That, and just how wildly "all over the board" the award are in these civil matters. OJ Simpson carved two people up with a butcher knife, was found liable for the wrongful deaths, and the amount awarded was $33 million. Meanwhile... Amber Heard and Johnny Depp had a "crappy home life situation", that was $15 million evidently.

 

[Bradskii]

So do you think that the Alex Jones suit (particularly sweeping scope of the outcome) was justice?

I've no problem with it at all.

One of my main gripes with civil trials is that the standards are lower than in actual criminal trials, and are more prone to subjectivity.

True. It's not a great system

 

[rambot]

So do you think that the Alex Jones suit (particularly sweeping scope of the outcome) was justice? Or was that satisfying a public blood lust?

One of my main gripes with civil trials is that the standards are lower than in actual criminal trials, and are more prone to subjectivity.

While I can understand that he's a loon who subjected grieving families to additional stress and heartache...

A civil penalty of "Everything you have, your business, and everything you may earn in the future", to me, seems like if the act was that vile, it belonged in a criminal court where he could've been charged with something like incitement, harassment with intent to cause injury/death, or something of the sort. If what he did was so dangerous that it equates to a $1 billion dollar judgement, then it should be a criminal matter of some sort.

Perhaps it's time to consider making some of those infractions a matter of the criminal code instead of being confined to civil court, so that way the bar is higher in court, and the accused has access to some of the rights that a person in a criminal matter would have.

For instance, this one is a big sticking point for me:
Either a judge or a jury can decide a trial in a civil case. If the plaintiff is seeking money damages of more than $20, the Constitution requires a jury trial unless both parties waive this right.

Which means, Alex Jones (as the defendant in a civil trial) has no choice but to let a jury decide. Which, I'm sure it's not controversial to say this...there's not going to be such a thing as a "neutral jury of his peers". Everyone has a strong opinion of him (mostly bad), and in certain jurisdictions, virtually any case you could bring him up on would be a slam dunk for the plaintiffs.


That, and just how wildly "all over the board" the award are in these civil matters. OJ Simpson carved two people up with a butcher knife, was found liable for the wrongful deaths, and the amount awarded was $33 million. Meanwhile... Amber Heard and Johnny Depp had a "crappy home life situation", that was $15 million evidently.

IT's hard for me to say the punishment is "too hard" if the criminal doesn't learn from it and change his behaviour.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

IT's hard for me to say the punishment is "too hard" if the criminal doesn't learn from it and change his behaviour.

Our society is replete with recidivism from people who "didn't learn their lesson"...

How many repeat offenders do we have for drug dealing and armed robbery? A lot

That, alone, isn't a justification for disproportionate punishment (if we want to be the civilized society we aspire to be)

To reiterate, I personally hate Alex Jones if I'm being honest...I think he's a scourge on society and I think he's put a lot of bad ideas in a lot of peoples' heads.

But if he didn't commit a crime that was worthy of criminal court, how are we justifying hanging him on the hook for a billion dollars?


I think our "civil court" system is deeply flawed. If what he did was so bad that it justifies a billion-dollar award, that thing in question should be a criminal matter and not civil.

Civil court has been somewhat bastardized in a way where it's no longer about "making the wronged party whole", and is more about "well, we don't think we can't smack him down in criminal court, so we'll take it to civil court where the standards are lower in order to send a message"

The fact that the accused doesn't have the same ability to choose between a judge or jury in civil matters is also a problem.

The evidence of that is what I mentioned before...the awards span the spectrum of absurdity.

Alex Jones gets hit for a billion dollars for spreading conspiracy theories that lead to harassment
Amber Heard gets hit for 15 million for pooping in someone's bed and falsely accusing someone of abuse (that nobody really took seriously)
OJ Simpson gets 33 million for literally stabbing two people to death

There's no consistency to it.


Theoretically, right now, I could say something that someone found offensive, and if someone wanted to take it to court for $20M, I have no ability to waive a jury trial, and as long as he lawyers for the plaintiff can cherry pick a handful of saps that are easily impressionable, I could end up on the hook for that.

 

[Bradskii]

IT's hard for me to say the punishment is "too hard" if the criminal doesn't learn from it and change his behaviour.

The punishment must be enough to deter others from committing the same offence. And be enough to convince the criminal from repeating the crime. To convince him or her to change their ways. Just locking them up is not generally going to do that. There must be some positive action that will help to change their attitudes.

Maybe the creep in this case should be made to individually meet with the Sandy Hook parents (obviously if they are willing) so they can explain to him, one on one, the personal effect his words had on them. If he'd had a custodial sentence then, through gritted teeth again, I would agree to his release if he was genuinely remorceful. On the understanding that a second offence would see the book thrown at him.