@ins0mniak Yeah, he was talking about it on the air. He said they're not going to get anything if they liquidate it, because it's all inventory, and the inventory moves because he sells it on his show.
I think he's right: if they shut it down, they have fish oil, caffeine powder, water filters, and no meme dude to sell it. They'll end up dumping it at five cents on the dollar to an overstock buyer. I think they're gonna do it anyway, since that was the point.
> In an “emergency” motion filed Sunday in Houston, trustee Christopher Murray indicated publicly for the first time that he intends to “conduct an orderly wind-down” of the operations of Infowars’ Austin-based parent company and “liquidate its inventory.”
Yeah, emergency motion, they're trying to make sure it's shut down before a court of appeal has a chance to say "$1.5 billion, are you fucking high?" turboforce.gif
You're 100% correct on defamation. It's an economic tort, not an emotional tort. Even the classic case of calling a woman unchaste is about her subsequent inability to get married, e.g. an economic injury, and not her emotions.
I find it even stranger that you can stick defamation on a guy that most people think is ridiculous. He doesn't have the authority of Tom Brokaw, and if he did, he could defame and hide behind being a "legitimate journalist." I was defamed by Hobo Harry!
> It's $1.5 billion for like "emotional damage", essentially, right?
Yeah, and defamation. Kind of insane, right? I mean, all of these giant dollar awards, you have to show actual damages, tallied up, and respondent's counsel is going to hassle you for documentation for every line item. Defamation, like, that's easy: you get fired, you have a speaking engagement cancelled, you can quantify it. You can't quantify emotional distress, but there's a federal cap on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
> To me it reeks of repression and censorship/retaliation for system criticism.
Sure seems that way. The thing is, I'm not sure it's because they think he's a serious threat to the system, just that he's pissed off a large number of the Martha's Vineyard/Upper East Side motherfuckers. Two guys from CNN get caught in separate child sex scandals, he harps on that for months, he goes around with a bullhorn at the DNC calling Bill Clinton a rapist, he drops that video of world leaders wailing under a wooden owl while one of them recites a poem to Moloch, he plays and replays the clip of George Soros describing his duties as a literal snitch for the Nazis and handing Jews over to them (which he describes as "a very happy-making time"), he talks about all of Bill Gates's visits to Epstein's island and speculates that this is what caused his divorce, he uploads videos of unaccompanied little girls crossing the border and getting put into unmarked windowless white vans.
Peter Thiel didn't want to be publicly outed, told Gawker they had better not, Gawker responds by putting "GAY VENTURE CAPITALIST IS SUPER HOMOSEXUAL" on the front page, and then when Hulk Hogan sues Gawker, Thiel tosses some money at Hogan's lawyers, Gawker is gone. And that's just a gay guy in San Francisco that wanted to keep some facets of his personal life private: even the most hard-line religious conservative will have less of a problem with a gay guy than with child trafficking, rape, Moloch, etc. I mean, would you want half the people in Epstein's black book to consider you a problem?
> I personally can't stand Alex Jones and think he's a charlatan moron.
I'll just say that I had this opinion and I watched a few episodes of his show and if you give him a little leeway with colorful use of language and what sort of behaviors constitute a "goblin" or an "interdimensional vampire", he's really just an very entertaining guy that yells about Satan-worshipping globalists and occasionally reads a news article.
I think it's completely legitimate to not be entertained by the guy, but there is kind of a broad gap between what's there and how it's characterized; he's more like Jon Stewart than Art Bell. joneswave.mp4
@p@fsebugoutzone.org It's $1.5 billion for like "emotional damage", essentially, right? It's pretty fucking insane, honestly. To me it reeks of repression and censorship/retaliation for system criticism. And I personally can't stand Alex Jones and think he's a charlatan moron. But, this is full mask off "we're going to crush you because we can and because you say things we don't like" by the status quo, basically. @ins0mniak@majestic12.airforce
> this judgement is ridiculous when considering the kind of monetary penalties mainstream outlets get.
Do they get penalties? The Russian Pee Tape and the "dossier", right, was there a $1.5B lawsuit?
> Personally I think he did go to far with some of that Sandy Hook Shit,
I think it is impossible to see David Hogg talk and not immediately think, "This guy's full of shit." You know? And then the media and the politicians jumping on it with both feet, "THIS IS WHY NOBODY SHOULD HAVE A GUN!", like they were glad the dead kids were allowing them to push their agenda. Anyone with a pulse could tell these people were fucked, so it's just a matter of how. I had the same thought I have every time I see a politician or a media whore climb over kids' corpses to try to score a point: psychopaths are indifferent to others' suffering but hyper-sensitive to how others perceive them, and they tend to be petty and spiteful. I can see making the jump from "These people are acting like this shooting didn't happen and this guy is obviously lying" all the way to "Maybe they're acting like that because it *actually* didn't happen."
> That having been said a 1.5 billion judgement is insane.
:gibbysmug2: According to law.cornell.edu, where I got my law degree-- :dudethink: You went to Cornell? :gibbysmug: Well, I went to the *website*. :dudemad: ... :gibbysmug2: I did my undergrad at Wikipedia. Go, sockpuppets!
Anyway, I looked it up when Humpleupagus mentioned the statutory limit on judgments for emotional distress: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981a . The cap is at $300k, but only if you have at least 501 employees, and it goes down from there. There's also a burden of proof, although with the usual caveats about proving intent, you can't just say that you were emotionally distressed, you have to demonstrate that they knew or acted with callous disregard etc.
> it was that Wolfgang Halbig clown
I don't think I have ever heard of a case where you are emotionally distressed by proxy. I mean, that was what they argued: the emotional distress was from people harassing them, and they believed Alex Jones had directly caused the people to harass them. I don't think the suit was filed in good faith, I think the only point was to shut him down. 0d974b5465692c49577863dd38e6a8d6fdaefec6a33f8b81f5495abf8c211dc6.mp4
@Humpleupagus@p@adiz I'm not a lawyer but this judgement is ridiculous when considering the kind of monetary penalties mainstream outlets get.
Personally I think he did go to far with some of that Sandy Hook Shit, but it was that Wolfgang Halbig clown that was out and out harassing the families and doxing them, not Alex. That having been said a 1.5 billion judgement is insane.
>The thing is, I'm not sure it's because they think he's a serious threat to the system, just that he's pissed off a large number of the Martha's Vineyard/Upper East Side motherfuckers
That's exactly what it was. Type of assholes who send million dollar donations to shit like Tides foundation and media matters or whatnot.
Its back to that insane war....one might call it and information war (see what I did there?) where they can't stand the idea of people talking on the internet without their expert guidance.
I mean just look what they tried to pull with xtwitter. They went after their advertisers because the back-end was tossing ads near "hate speech" posts....except that what they did was go to some wingnat's post and refresh the page until an ad for soap or something came up, then publicly called out said company for advertising against "hate speech"
These morons don't understand the internet let alone the consequences that come with attacking people like this.
Libs of Tik Tok found that out, Taylor Lorenz is literally crying on msnbc about getting doxxed.....right after she doxes libs of tik tok.
Plus, in most cases entional distress has to arise from some separate cognizable injury. There are exceptions were it can be a direct action, but it's usually tied to some heightened or fiduciary duty, e.g. the hospital gives you the wrong baby.
So here, and unless that state has some exception, I assume the injury would have to be from the defamation in order to tie in an emotional distress claim. Yet, they're not claiming the damage caused by the defamation cause their distress, but rather some other guy, i.e. they're claiming the emotional distress is the injury cause by the defamation, not that it arose from the injury caused by the defamation. It's a fine difference, but if the difference goes, then defamation simply becomes a vehicle for an direct emotional distress tort.
This would still be the case even if the statements were defamatory. Assuming they were, they may well have a claim to emotional distress caused by the injury, the acts of this rando not being one.
:alexjonesshiggy2: And they can't shut down...FREEDOM! So, ladies and gentlemen, I-- :tyrellmanic: ALEX SIGN MY TITS :alexjonesshock: ...
:alexjoneswat4: Look, I appreciate your help, but I can't keep doing my show with this Pete guy running around the studio like a lunatic. :moon: I told you, he comes with the building. He'll wear himself out in a few hours. :alexjonesshiggy: And about 0... :moon: Never heard of her. [click] :alexjoneswarface2: ...
@SilverDeth@J@ins0mniak@sun Shit, we've got some tanks, the military museum is like two miles from here and it's just, like, a bunch of tanks in the open air. I'm pretty sure that stealing a tank is one of those things where, like...
:yougottaavealoicense: Get the fuck back here! You're all the way under arrest! I'll George Floyd your ass! :ronsplaining: I have a *tank*. Make me. :thebobbies: Carry on. :ronsmug: