Alex Jones found liable

[Narz]

Alex Jones ordered to pay $45.2M more over Sandy Hook lies

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas jury on Friday ordered conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay $45.2 million in punitive damages to the parents of a child who was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, adding to the $4.1 million he must pay for the suffering he put them through by...

apnews.com

Conspiracy monger Alex Jones owes to pay $ for lying about Sandy Hook leading to many of his followers to threaten people who'd already lost children.

I 1st heard of this guy almost 20 years ago when I friend had me watch some video of his about the illuminati and how 9/11 was a conspiracy. Back then I thought he was loud and annoying tho for a minute or two I seriously considered some of the 9/11 stuff.

Guy clearly has some major mental illness but evidently so do alot of people and he's been able to make bank off of other paranoid, delusional types.

I don't feel the least bit bad for him. He did this to himself and I hope this ruins his business (along w his conspiracy show he also sells various snakeoil products taking advantage of men worried about their virility and doomer types worried about the end of the world).

Some high lights from the trial :

 

[amadeus]

Bill of rights.

I didn’t follow the case, don’t care about Jones and his gay frogs. If he incited violence, to a civil liability standard, well, that’s his problem. Live by the conspiracy sword, you know the rest.

 

[Kyriakos]

42 million... That's a lot of money. Can he actually pay all that?
Then again I recall that maga hat kid who got awarded 1/4 of a billion.

 

[amadeus]

That’s a lot of snake oil supplements.

 

[Angst]

42 million... That's a lot of money. Can he actually pay all that?
Then again I recall that maga hat kid who got awarded 1/4 of a billion.

How Much Money Alex Jones Has Made Since His First Defamation Trial

Celebrity Net Worth reports that Jones sells an array of products online, and some of them are highly marked up to increase his profit margins. If Jones makes $200,000 in revenue per day from his businesses, that would equate to $73 million each year. As for Jones' personal income, Celebrity Net Worth says that he made $18 million between 2018, when the trial started, and 2021, when all the income from his numerous businesses was combined.

The Sandy Hook families are seeking $150 million in court. Even if Jones does have to pay out $150 million to the families, he claims there's no way he would have that much money in the first place. Celebrity Net Worth puts his personal equity at $5 million, so he would be financially devastated by such a judgment.
...
Even after Alex Jones was de-platformed by YouTube and Facebook, his brands generated at least $70 million in 2018 and 2019 (per Celebrity Net Worth). However, according to The New York Times, Jones' company, Free Speech Systems, filed for bankruptcy in 2022. Alex Jones' lawyer has argued that his client shouldn't have to pay more than a single dollar when the verdict arrives, per Newsweek.

In a shocking twist, in August 2022, Jones' lawyers accidentally revealed their client's entire cell phone history (via The New York Times). He has been caught in numerous lies. Apparently, these cell phone records dispute Jones' claims that he is bankrupt. According to The Texas Tribune, the families believe Jones won't stop spreading misinformation about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on his shows until he is appropriately held accountable. As for Jones, he continues to defend himself in court and via his radio show.

Like, I'm not sure whether this liability is significant money or not for him, but InfoWars while absolute garbage earns him absurd amounts of money. So I'm not sure he'll care (it's not clear), and he'll spin it for more sales.

Part of this is because he indeed drains his fans for cash, and they won't believe the "mainstream media" or whatever noting his absurd income, since he himself, who they consider trustworthy, keeps claiming they're almost bankrupt, constantly. "THEY'RE TRYING TO GET US OFF THE AIR, TRYING TO SHUT US DOWN! WE TRY OUR BEST TO KEEP AFLOAT, BUT WE CAN'T! BUY OUR CRAPPY MERCHANDISE AND OVERPRICED PILLS! THEN WE CAN FIGHT THE POWER!" *Shakes Rolex* (literally)

EDIT: The OP video, apparently the text messages were sent between him and Paul Joseph Watson, which amuses me. He's another complete garbage conman for the record, and one I hold reasonably dear to my heart as baffling internet content that's easily taken apart. He acts as a somewhat handsome face to the alt-right, which they naturally need to look natural.

 

[GenMarshall]

Being a resident where it happened across the state, I don't hold much sympathy for the guy on creating a conspiracy on something that has happened in the state.

 

[Lexicus]

42 million... That's a lot of money. Can he actually pay all that?
Then again I recall that maga hat kid who got awarded 1/4 of a billion.

His net worth is about six times that according to Google

 

[Yeekim]

Did not know who that guy is, but seems like a thoroughly good news.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Despicable is the best word for him.

 

[Zardnaar]

Despicable is the best word for him.

That's being generous.

 

[Oerdin]

The reality is he will end up paying around $13 million.

 

[EvaDK]

Isn't this the clown who begged his followers to bail him out financially, should he be sentenced to pay up?

He's basically Eli Sunday in There Will Be Blood, PT Anderson's masterful 2007 cautionary tale.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Did not know who that guy is, but seems like a thoroughly good news.

it is not. it is one of the worst disgraces of us "justice" in recent memory. that's more because of how the court proceedings were handled than any defense of jones per se'.

there were numerous serious problems with this case/trial, rarely seen in any normal us court proceeding:

• defamation:
  • texas defamation law requires timely notice for retraction of defamation claims/chance to retract. that didn't happen in this case.
  • jones never had a proper trial where he could defend himself on the merits. he was given a "summary judgment", despite many hours of deposition and information turned over, because he could not produce social media analytics. he claimed he did not have them. summary judgment against defendant in this context is both extraordinary and alarming. there are only a few cases in us history that used this despite defendant producing information, and they are nothing like this.
  • defamation requires the person(s) defamed be specific or inferred specific. iirc, this has historically meant <25 people. there were more sandy hook victims than that
  • this case ignores the majority of jones' speech on sandy hook, which acknowledged the shooting and was instead doing a conspiracy theory about the government not trying hard to stop these events so it can use them as fuel to ban guns. that's not a particularly ethical position to take either, but it conflicts with the accusations in the case and was blocked from ever being heard in court on the merits, again.
• thus, defamation would almost certainly fail on the merits. the more interesting claim is intentional infliction of emotional distress:
  • jones was told what he could and could not say on the stand, even before this jury which was already handed the conclusion he was guilty.
  • that includes ridiculous things, such as talking about the fact that he apologized. judge in this case informed jury to ignore that he apologized as a mitigating factor, in defiance of texas law which explicitly says it is a mitigating factor
  • the numbers for damages in this trial are looney toons
  • same as defamation above, jones was denied due process for this case to be heard on the merits.
• making this situation even worse:
  • appellate court is similarly corrupt and will likely deny and try to block a stay on paying the money while this goes to appeal.
  • jones' lawyers sending his cell phone information, and its use by prosecution, were both unethical actions that could (in more sane courts) result in mistrial. there's a high chance jones can pin malpractice on his lawyers and make them eat the court-awarded looney toons damages instead.

it should not matter if you like jones or think he's a complete cretin. this court is kangaroo to the levels i would normally expect only out of bad family courts. this process of "justice" is a threat to literally every american. saying things the government disagrees with is not defamation. conspiracy theories are not "defamation".

If he incited violence, to a civil liability standard, well, that’s his problem.

??? that's not even alleged here. fwiw, he advocated against the riots on jan. 6, claiming it was a setup, even as it was happening. us government practices since them lent him more credibility than he should have had in saying that.

either way, there is significant misinformation about what jones supposedly did here and how the trial has actually happened/progressed. he was found guilty before even having a trial. this was to decide the money he had to pay out, and even in this context he was restricted in what he could say.

i would imagine that if jones were really guilty of the things accused, it would not require trampling multiple rights explicitly granted in the bill of rights in order to pin crazy damages on him. by the standards given in this case, we'd have expected the sandman case to outright sink multiple major media outlets...

 

[Gorbles]

it is not. it is one of the worst disgraces of us "justice" in recent memory. that's more because of how the court proceedings were handled than any defense of jones per se'.

It's refreshing that I can predict your interpretation of US law based on nothing but ideological groupings. Not everyone goes all-in like this. Most people have a limit (like this thread handily demonstrates, your post aside).

 

[Hygro]

it is not. it is one of the worst disgraces of us "justice" in recent memory. that's more because of how the court proceedings were handled than any defense of jones per se'.

there were numerous serious problems with this case/trial, rarely seen in any normal us court proceeding:

• defamation:
  • texas defamation law requires timely notice for retraction of defamation claims/chance to retract. that didn't happen in this case.
  • jones never had a proper trial where he could defend himself on the merits. he was given a "summary judgment", despite many hours of deposition and information turned over, because he could not produce social media analytics. he claimed he did not have them. summary judgment against defendant in this context is both extraordinary and alarming. there are only a few cases in us history that used this despite defendant producing information, and they are nothing like this.
  • defamation requires the person(s) defamed be specific or inferred specific. iirc, this has historically meant <25 people. there were more sandy hook victims than that
  • this case ignores the majority of jones' speech on sandy hook, which acknowledged the shooting and was instead doing a conspiracy theory about the government not trying hard to stop these events so it can use them as fuel to ban guns. that's not a particularly ethical position to take either, but it conflicts with the accusations in the case and was blocked from ever being heard in court on the merits, again.
• thus, defamation would almost certainly fail on the merits. the more interesting claim is intentional infliction of emotional distress:
  • jones was told what he could and could not say on the stand, even before this jury which was already handed the conclusion he was guilty.
  • that includes ridiculous things, such as talking about the fact that he apologized. judge in this case informed jury to ignore that he apologized as a mitigating factor, in defiance of texas law which explicitly says it is a mitigating factor
  • the numbers for damages in this trial are looney toons
  • same as defamation above, jones was denied due process for this case to be heard on the merits.
• making this situation even worse:
  • appellate court is similarly corrupt and will likely deny and try to block a stay on paying the money while this goes to appeal.
  • jones' lawyers sending his cell phone information, and its use by prosecution, were both unethical actions that could (in more sane courts) result in mistrial. there's a high chance jones can pin malpractice on his lawyers and make them eat the court-awarded looney toons damages instead.

it should not matter if you like jones or think he's a complete cretin. this court is kangaroo to the levels i would normally expect only out of bad family courts. this process of "justice" is a threat to literally every american. saying things the government disagrees with is not defamation. conspiracy theories are not "defamation".


??? that's not even alleged here. fwiw, he advocated against the riots on jan. 6, claiming it was a setup, even as it was happening. us government practices since them lent him more credibility than he should have had in saying that.

either way, there is significant misinformation about what jones supposedly did here and how the trial has actually happened/progressed. he was found guilty before even having a trial. this was to decide the money he had to pay out, and even in this context he was restricted in what he could say.

i would imagine that if jones were really guilty of the things accused, it would not require trampling multiple rights explicitly granted in the bill of rights in order to pin crazy damages on him. by the standards given in this case, we'd have expected the sandman case to outright sink multiple major media outlets...

I'm not a Jones fan, and I think he's a f*ing liar. I don't think he would have turned his opinion around on the "reality" of Sandy Hook had he not come under fiduciary fire years back.

But I also agree with a good chunk of this.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not a Jones fan, and I think he's a f*ing liar. I don't think he would have turned his opinion around on the "reality" of Sandy Hook had he not come under fiduciary fire years back.

But I also agree with a good chunk of this.

A good chunk of what? Like, a lot of the claims TMIT are making are refuted by the lies Jones has made, and indeed continued to make throughout his trial.

Instead of amplifying a "good chunk" of TMIT's, uh, theories, specifically cite what you do agree with. Maybe?

 

[Birdjaguar]

it is not. it is one of the worst disgraces of us "justice" in recent memory. that's more because of how the court proceedings were handled than any defense of jones per se'.

there were numerous serious problems with this case/trial, rarely seen in any normal us court proceeding:

• defamation:
  • texas defamation law requires timely notice for retraction of defamation claims/chance to retract. that didn't happen in this case.
  • jones never had a proper trial where he could defend himself on the merits. he was given a "summary judgment", despite many hours of deposition and information turned over, because he could not produce social media analytics. he claimed he did not have them. summary judgment against defendant in this context is both extraordinary and alarming. there are only a few cases in us history that used this despite defendant producing information, and they are nothing like this.
  • defamation requires the person(s) defamed be specific or inferred specific. iirc, this has historically meant <25 people. there were more sandy hook victims than that
  • this case ignores the majority of jones' speech on sandy hook, which acknowledged the shooting and was instead doing a conspiracy theory about the government not trying hard to stop these events so it can use them as fuel to ban guns. that's not a particularly ethical position to take either, but it conflicts with the accusations in the case and was blocked from ever being heard in court on the merits, again.
• thus, defamation would almost certainly fail on the merits. the more interesting claim is intentional infliction of emotional distress:
  • jones was told what he could and could not say on the stand, even before this jury which was already handed the conclusion he was guilty.
  • that includes ridiculous things, such as talking about the fact that he apologized. judge in this case informed jury to ignore that he apologized as a mitigating factor, in defiance of texas law which explicitly says it is a mitigating factor
  • the numbers for damages in this trial are looney toons
  • same as defamation above, jones was denied due process for this case to be heard on the merits.
• making this situation even worse:
  • appellate court is similarly corrupt and will likely deny and try to block a stay on paying the money while this goes to appeal.
  • jones' lawyers sending his cell phone information, and its use by prosecution, were both unethical actions that could (in more sane courts) result in mistrial. there's a high chance jones can pin malpractice on his lawyers and make them eat the court-awarded looney toons damages instead.

it should not matter if you like jones or think he's a complete cretin. this court is kangaroo to the levels i would normally expect only out of bad family courts. this process of "justice" is a threat to literally every american. saying things the government disagrees with is not defamation. conspiracy theories are not "defamation".


??? that's not even alleged here. fwiw, he advocated against the riots on jan. 6, claiming it was a setup, even as it was happening. us government practices since them lent him more credibility than he should have had in saying that.

either way, there is significant misinformation about what jones supposedly did here and how the trial has actually happened/progressed. he was found guilty before even having a trial. this was to decide the money he had to pay out, and even in this context he was restricted in what he could say.

i would imagine that if jones were really guilty of the things accused, it would not require trampling multiple rights explicitly granted in the bill of rights in order to pin crazy damages on him. by the standards given in this case, we'd have expected the sandman case to outright sink multiple major media outlets...

@JollyRoger You know something about TX law and perhaps can voice a legal opinion about this.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not a Jones fan, and I think he's a f*ing liar. I don't think he would have turned his opinion around on the "reality" of Sandy Hook had he not come under fiduciary fire years back.

But I also agree with a good chunk of this.

That post looks to me like the ravings of a madman. What is to agree with?

 

[Angst]

I guess it's because some court procedure hasn't been followed (we all have the right to that), but suspension of ability to claim specific things, and disallowance of certain things as proof, is quite normal in court. So a lot of the "kangaroo court" claims in that post, I take with a grain of salt.

 

[Hygro]

• this case ignores the majority of jones' speech on sandy hook, which acknowledged the shooting and was instead doing a conspiracy theory about the government not trying hard to stop these events so it can use them as fuel to ban guns. that's not a particularly ethical position to take either, but it conflicts with the accusations in the case and was blocked from ever being heard in court on the merits, again.
• that includes ridiculous things, such as talking about the fact that he apologized. judge in this case informed jury to ignore that he apologized as a mitigating factor, in defiance of texas law which explicitly says it is a mitigating factor
• the numbers for damages in this trial are looney toons
• jones' lawyers sending his cell phone information, and its use by prosecution, were both unethical actions that could (in more sane courts) result in mistrial. there's a high chance jones can pin malpractice on his lawyers and make them eat the court-awarded looney toons damages instead.

Plus a couple of bullets that really depend on legal technicalities but do seem strange.