A "justice" system would be one where even if a defendant completely ignores the case, their penalty does not exceed what is reasonable for the offense. A system which forces you into a game with stakes that can be ratcheted well beyond what was proportional for the instigating offense is not a pursuit of justice.

Need an NIL contract to run the site...

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

A "justice" system would be one where even if a defendant completely ignores the case, their penalty does not exceed what is reasonable for the offense. A system which forces you into a game with stakes that can be ratcheted well beyond what was proportional for the instigating offense is not a pursuit of justice.

---

It wasn't that Jones just ignored the case, he repeatedly gave the court the middle finger. When he did that, he found out that the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

A "justice" system would be one where even if a defendant completely ignores the case, their penalty does not exceed what is reasonable for the offense. A system which forces you into a game with stakes that can be ratcheted well beyond what was proportional for the instigating offense is not a pursuit of justice.

---

It wasn't that Jones just ignored the case, he repeatedly gave the court the middle finger. When he did that, he found out that the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.

---

And I appreciate that he played it poorly. But the result is vindictive to an absurd degree. It's clearly about exerting power to "teach him a lesson."

Let's remember what the premise was: disparaging questions / statements on a niche media outlet that the disparaged only learned about through third parties.

…JUSTICE wouldn't present a pathway to launder that into penalties in excess of a small nation's annual GDP. The very existence of that pathway should be far more concerning than Jones' errors.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

A "justice" system would be one where even if a defendant completely ignores the case, their penalty does not exceed what is reasonable for the offense. A system which forces you into a game with stakes that can be ratcheted well beyond what was proportional for the instigating offense is not a pursuit of justice.

---

And a justice system would not prioritize the impact of a judgement on the defendant over what a jury decides is fair compensation and punitive damages to individual plaintiffs, especially when that defendant chooses not to participate.

Jones was judged against reasonably for his actions. His problem is that there were about 2 dozen plaintiffs who were given individual awards. If someone burned down a condominium and was ordered to pay $5 million to each of 200 tenants for the damages they suffered, you wouldn't defend them with the notion that setting a fire isn't worth $1 billion or that they can't pay.

Hell, it's basically the reverse of Nicholas Sandmann. Would anyone defending Jones complain if Sandmann were successful in a lawsuit and got $20 million? What if he had that success in all 8 of his lawsuits? That would make the slander against him worth $160 million, which would seem absurd given how fast the world moved on.

Would anyone defending Jones be upset if a bunch of Nicholas Sandmanns all got $20 million from a single network like CNN, and they were forced to pay hundreds of millions just for one act of slander? Or would you rather CNN just pay the same $20 million for the same act and force the many plaintiffs to split it?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Hell, it's basically the reverse of Nicholas Sandmann. Would anyone defending Jones complain if Sandmann were successful in a lawsuit and got $20 million? What if he had that success in all 8 of his lawsuits? That would make the slander against him worth $160 million, which would seem absurd given how fast the world moved on.

Would anyone defending Jones be upset if a bunch of Nicholas Sandmanns all got $20 million from a single network like CNN, and they were forced to pay hundreds of millions just for one act of slander? Or would you rather CNN just pay the same $20 million for the same act and force the many plaintiffs to split it?

---

Your example shows the asymmetry in the order of magnitude:
1. Sandman did nothing to make himself into a public figure (whereas parents who did speak at a press conference arguable put themselves in that status)
2. Media who smeared Sandman had MUCH greater reach than Jones
3. Sandman was a minor at the time whereas all Jones parties were adults.
4. Awards of $120M to Sandman would still be an order of magnitude less than the Jones awards.

I'm not arguing that Jones should go Scott free - my point remains that this process resulted in something other than JUSTICE. (And it wasn't as clean & straight forward as you seem to think).

Just like being "free speech" requires equal treatment to offensive things said by folks you dislike: "Justice" (the principle, not a legal system) requires equal dispassionate treatment and consistent outcomes to all regardless whether you hate or love them.

1. Irrelevant to the question
2. Irrelevant to the question
3. Irrelevant to the question
4. Such an award would actually be multiples of what was given to the individual plaintiffs in Jones's cases. If you're fine with that, you can't complain about Jones.


So why don't you answer the actual questions instead of trying to dodge them?

Because while you're upset and crying foul at the size of the overall judgement, you wouldn't in an individual case with the average judgement per plaintiff. Your position comes down to, "If CNN defames someone and has to pay 8 figures, cool. If Alex Jones defames someone and has to pay 8 figures, it's a miscarriage of justice."

That's hypocrisy.

I would not have said what he said, but I guess there will always be people looking to get a payday and they will be willing to do anything to get in the pockets of those with more than they have.

The penalty should reflect the degree of defamation (damage). Jones was a small enough media entity that these families only learned of what he said through some *******s harassing them. MSM defamation can immediately taint personal & public interactions for the rest of your life.

Size of audience matters. If you werent blinded by a desire to see this party destroyed you might hold a consistent/ principled position that a Jones penalty should be an order of magnitude LOWER than a MSM penalty given his much lower viewership (he should probably be looking at 7 figures, not 10!).

It's not hypocrisy to say that he's getting a severely disproportionate penalty. Thats factual.

It would be so damn funny if Elon Musk buys Infowars, and makes it into some part of the X ecosystem as a news service.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

It's not hypocrisy to say that he's getting a severely disproportionate penalty. Thats factual.

---

No. That statement is objectively an opinion.

ATM9000 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

It's not hypocrisy to say that he's getting a severely disproportionate penalty. Thats factual.

---

No. That statement is objectively an opinion.

---

I think there is space between a straight up opinion based on instinct or taste and an informed judgement. To say that this was clearly disproportional and way overly punitive is an informed judgment based on the evidence.

Someone could have literally killed these people or raped them and the civil penalty would be far less than what he got for exercising his constitutional right to free expression.

Lol at the ****s hating on Alex Jones. Get pegged by waltz daughter

GE said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

It's not hypocrisy to say that he's getting a severely disproportionate penalty. Thats factual.

---

No. That statement is objectively an opinion.

---

I think there is space between a straight up opinion based on instinct or taste and an informed judgement. To say that this was clearly disproportional and way overly punitive is an informed judgment based on the evidence.

---

Word salad. A judgement is still an opinion.

The post I replied to is also not factual (as stated). It's just an opinion. I might also share that opinion.

But… it's an opinion Alex Jones had loads of opportunity to refute against. He opted instead to not play ball.

ATM9000 said:

---

GE said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

It's not hypocrisy to say that he's getting a severely disproportionate penalty. Thats factual.

---

No. That statement is objectively an opinion.

---

I think there is space between a straight up opinion based on instinct or taste and an informed judgement. To say that this was clearly disproportional and way overly punitive is an informed judgment based on the evidence.

---

Word salad. A judgement is still an opinion.

The post I replied to is also not factual (as stated). It's just an opinion. I might also share that opinion.

But… it's an opinion Alex Jones had loads of opportunity to refute against. He opted instead to not play ball.

---

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it word salad.

GE said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

GE said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

It's not hypocrisy to say that he's getting a severely disproportionate penalty. Thats factual.

---

No. That statement is objectively an opinion.

---

I think there is space between a straight up opinion based on instinct or taste and an informed judgement. To say that this was clearly disproportional and way overly punitive is an informed judgment based on the evidence.

---

Word salad. A judgement is still an opinion.

The post I replied to is also not factual (as stated). It's just an opinion. I might also share that opinion.

But… it's an opinion Alex Jones had loads of opportunity to refute against. He opted instead to not play ball.

---

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it word salad.

---

I understand it but it is nonsense. Bringing the word judgement into this implies some dude on the internet has a choice in the matter but they don't. Therefore, the statement can merely be an opinion.

Let's be clear, if Jones had bothered to participate in any of this, he likely would not be in the position that he's in. He did this to himself

Charpie said:

---

Let's be clear, if Jones had bothered to participate in any of this, he likely would not be in the position that he's in. He did this to himself

---

He played it badly. We've all agreed on that point. BUT this isn't a one person tango. The point is - as stated above - the penalties he's facing at far beyond what violent criminals receive for murder or rape or corporations receive for negligent homicide. That that can happen in the first place is indicative of an injustice with the system as wielded.

The wonderful part about America, is that what you said can be true, AND not illegal….