Sandy Hook Families are Now After Alex Jones Social Media Accounts

[Sonny Tufts]

This is what you previously said (bold emphasis added):

​

"So" conveys the meaning of "thus" or "therefore", implying that any "egregiousness" in the degree of liability found was caused or warranted (at least in part) by Jones' disobedience to the court, rather (or in addition to) the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs. If it is the case that you did not intend to convey that implication, then so be it - but it is the reasonable inference to have been drawn from what you said. (Even if the degree of liability found for the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs was warranted, then it would still have been so, regardless of any disobedience to the court by Jones - thus, the explicit association of the latter to the former in your statement only served to reinforce that inference).

Look, its very simple: the default judgment simply found liability; it didn't determine the amount of damages. Jones's disobedience of court orders had everything to do with the former but had nothing to do with the latter. In addition, the default judgment was rendered by the judge, while the damages were determined by the jury. Two entirely separate issues.

Whatever one thinks of the obnoxiousness of Jones' defamation of mass shooting survivors as "crisis actors" and such, the notion that it rises to the level of imposing ruinous 10-figure damages so great that they can never reasonably be hoped to be recovered is grotesquely absurd. It is neither compensatory nor (justly) punitive, but only viciously destructive.

I suspect you might feel differently if you had been one of the parents whose child was murdered, who had been accused of being a crisis actor, who had been told the whole thing was a hoax, and who had been subjected to death threats.

For what it's worth, I fully expect an appellate court to reduce the amount of punitive damages.

 

[Invisible Man]

I suspect you might feel differently if you had been one of the parents whose child was murdered, who had been accused of being a crisis actor, who had been told the whole thing was a hoax, and who had been subjected to death threats.

The worst part of that is the murder of the child, which Jones had nothing to do with.

I can't imagine that if I were in those parents' shoes I would honestly believe that anything Jones did warranted punitive damages anywhere near that much.

 

[WarriorLiberty]

The worst part of that is the murder of the child, which Jones had nothing to do with.

I can't imagine that if I were in those parents' shoes I would honestly believe that anything Jones did warranted punitive damages anywhere near that much.

Exctly Alex Jones had nothing to do with the shooting.


Was it a bad take? yes
Is it a bad take that you would destroy someone's freedom of speech the right have their opinion on a event?

Because if Sandy Hook families are successful which i dont believe they would be.
The next target would be going anyone being a 9/11 truther.

 

[sparebulb]

Wutt!?

Is yous sayin that Aleks Joanzz didn't kill all dem chitlins?

That's not the feelzs that the TV gives me.

Average 'murikan

 

[Occam's Banana]

*sigh* I rarely resort to all-caps "shouting", but in this case ...

Look, its very simple: the default judgment simply found liability; it didn't determine the amount of damages. Jones's disobedience of court orders had everything to do with the former but had nothing to do with the latter. In addition, the default judgment was rendered by the judge, while the damages were determined by the jury. Two entirely separate issues.

YES, I KNOW ALL THAT!! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!

Given that they are "entirely separate issues", why did you associate them in your original statement, as if the one had something to do with the other? If you did not mean to do so (though I am at a loss as to what else you might have meant), then just say so.

I suspect you might feel differently if you had been one of the parents whose child was murdered, who had been accused of being a crisis actor, who had been told the whole thing was a hoax, and who had been subjected to death threats.

Yes, I probably would feel differently under those circumstances. So what?

The victims (or their survivors) in criminal cases - and plaintiffs in civil cases - are not permitted to serve on the juries for those cases.

You do know that, don't you? /rhetorical

If so, do you understand why? /not-rhetorical

For what it's worth, I fully expect an appellate court to reduce the amount of punitive damages.

Given that it's an acknowledgement of sorts that the excessive damages are indeed unwarranted, I suppose it's worth at least something.

 

[unknown]

That judge AND jury can suck a dick.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Given that it's an acknowledgement of sorts that the excessive damages are indeed unwarranted, I suppose it's worth at least something.

It's not that the punitive damages weren't warranted by Jones's outrageous conduct (they were). But in the Texas case (in which the jury awarded $45.2 million in punitive damages) there is a statute capping the amount of such damages to twice the amount of compensatory damages (which was $4.1 million) plus $750,000. There's some dispute whether the statute applies to Jones's case, since there is a statutory exception for intentional abuse of a disabled person, and apparently the plaintiffs successfully argued that the parents' trauma over their son's death was a disability.

Incidentally, while the punitive damages in the Texas case were awarded by the jury those in the Connecticut case were awarded by the judge. In that case the jury awarded compensatory damages of $965 million to be split among 15 plaintiffs (individual awards ranged from $28.8 million to $120 million), and punitive damages were $473 million.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It's not that the punitive damages weren't warranted by Jones's outrageous conduct (they were).

They weren't.

They were grotesquely absurd.

But in the Texas case (in which the jury awarded $45.2 million in punitive damages) there is a statute capping the amount of such damages to twice the amount of compensatory damages [...]

Then Texas sanely has at least some degree of prophylactic against such grotesque absurdities.

But ...

There's some dispute whether the statute applies to Jones's case, since there is a statutory exception for intentional abuse of a disabled person, and apparently the plaintiffs successfully argued that the parents' trauma over their son's death was a disability.

LOL of course they did

 

[vita3]

Thanks for details Sonny Tufts

 

[Occam's Banana]

[T]he seizure of [Jones' social media accounts] seems to be motivated by the desire to punitively silence him, and little or nothing more (it certainly won't serve to help make the plaintiffs whole in any significant way).

[T]he very egregiousness of the sanctions now being sought (especially with respect to things such as stripping [Jones] of his social media presence and destroying his ability to "promote new business ventures") speaks in favor of th[e] claim [that "[t]hey won't stop until Jones' 1st Amendment rights are taken away"] (with the supposed egregiousness of Jones' conduct serving as a convenient and face-saving fig leaf for that motivation).

They are seeking to squelch Jones completely, and for reasons having nothing to do with any "egregiousness" of the originating defamation, or with the recovery of damages for such.

The only purpose of seizing Jones' social media accounts is to deprive him of their use. They are otherwise of little or no value. No one is going to give a damn about Jones' Twitter or Instagram accounts without Jones behind them. That is why they are seeking to take them from him.

Whatever one thinks of the obnoxiousness of Jones' defamation of mass shooting survivors as "crisis actors" and such, the notion that it rises to the level of imposing ruinous 10-figure damages so great that they can never reasonably be hoped to be recovered is grotesquely absurd. It is neither compensatory nor (justly) punitive, but only viciously destructive. Such carte blanche is not punitive justice - it is punitive "lawfare". That Jones may be an "egregious" jackass does not change this [...]

//

[...]

They simply no longer have the degree of control they once had as curators and gatekeepers over the apparatus of information dissemination.

And it's driving them crazy because there's little they can effectively do about it, except wail and whinge. [...]

Draconian victories like this Jones verdict (assuming it stands) are about the best they can hope for - and even those are apt to be Pyrrhic, given that they tend to foster ever-deepening cynicism.

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1350867883753091076

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1350872436623994881

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The families of the slain and injured victims and any person that feels harmed should sue all those that spoke hate about Conservatives and Trump.