• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Official Alex Jones Thread!

plague311 said:
I was thinking about this while reading the news last night. Elon Musk is now trying to exert ownership over the Twitter account of Alex Jones, or his media empire and is doing so under the premise that Twitter owns the account, and all accounts. I have to believe that this would open Twitter up to lawsuits as well? I was under the impression that the reason social media companies weren't held responsible for what was posted on their platform was because they aren't technically publishers and aren't responsible for what is posted on their platforms (to some degree). If Musk is saying Twitter owns those accounts then he has to be responsible for them.

Anyway, I might be blowing smoke. It was just an interesting thought I had while reading the article.
Click to expand...
Twitter accounts exist in a state known as Shrodinger's Ownership. When it suits Galaxy Brain (such as when he needs to preen in front of the other nazis) he owns the accounts, when it doesn't suit him (such as when the posts associated with an account incur a financial penalty) ownership devolves to the poster. The waveform only collapses and which state the account is in is only resolved upon hearing the sound of a judge's gavel, known as the Litigator Effect.
 
The X/Twitter terms of service explicitly say that users own the content they post. They don't say who owns the handles, so Musk is asserting an argument that X/Twitter does. Musk has wrested ownership and control over handles he wants to use, including @X. He also appropriated @America from its original owner to serve a Trump super PAC. I'm not sure the legal questions that arise have bright-line distinctions. If you post a lot under a handle that is strongly tied to you, and Musk wants it, what happens to the former content? Musk says he doesn't own it, but how is its creator supposed to assert control over it without access to the account it belongs to?

The side note here is that Jones made a lot of noise about Elon Musk coming to his rescue. That didn't happen. X/Twitter's filing expressly says it does not object to the sale of Infowars to the Onion. Its interest is solely in Infowars' identities on the X/Twitter platform.
 
If the poster owns the content, doesn't it include naturally the handle they chose and posted, as well as followers who followed the content?
 
Well, when I wanted to post on the official NBA website quite a few years ago, they said the all posts are owned by them. Not sure if it's a common thing, but I've been careful to look at the fine print before posting on a new site.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Would not even know where to start! 🤪
Click to expand...
Start by giving a copyright lawyer obscene amounts of money. Wait a ridiculous amount of time till he says it's complicated and demands more money. Take matters into your own hands by copying and pasting an online cease and desist letter with a demand for payments from anyone using the letter X. Cash checks and apply for work at the ISF. They'll never find you.
 
Thermal said:
Start by giving a copyright lawyer obscene amounts of money. Wait a ridiculous amount of time till he says it's complicated and demands more money. Take matters into your own hands by copying and pasting an online cease and desist letter with a demand for payments from anyone using the letter X. Cash checks and apply for work at the ISF. They'll never find you.
Click to expand...
Au contraire, they have their ways. And they smoke cigarettes Nazi-style between thumb and forefinger while hunting you down.
 
Thermal said:
Start by giving a copyright lawyer obscene amounts of money. Wait a ridiculous amount of time till he says it's complicated and demands more money. Take matters into your own hands by copying and pasting an online cease and desist letter with a demand for payments from anyone using the letter X. Cash checks and apply for work at the ISF. They'll never find you.
Click to expand...
Wait... I want to write this down. Start again...

1. Obscene amounts of money
2. Lawyers
3. .. something, something...threats... something...
4. Profit!
 
Has The Onion done anything with the site yet? My devices have a self-imposed ban on infowars.
 
Just learned that USA Today has a reporter dedicated to Taylor Swift news. I think The Onion could have good fun with that.
 

Appeals court upholds nearly $1.3 billion Sandy Hook verdict against Alex Jones​


Dec 6 (Reuters) - A Connecticut appeals court on Friday largely upheld a nearly $1.3 billion defamation verdict against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in a case accusing the Infowars founder of spreading lies about the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting.

A three-judge panel of the Connecticut Appellate Court found that a jury's October 2022 decision to award $965 million in damages plus attorneys fees and costs to families of the shooting's victims was not unreasonable given the mental anguish they suffered due to the lies by Jones about Sandy Hook.

In affirming the verdict, the judges found fault only with a portion awarding $150 million in damages under a state unfair trade practices law, finding that should be thrown out because it did not properly apply to the facts of the case. . . .

Jones' lawyer Norm Pattis said in a statement that the jury was falsely led to believe Jones made millions of dollars off the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and that Jones was to blame for the families' anguish.

"We had hoped the Appellate Court would have seen through the charade and farce that this trial became. It didn’t," Pattis said, adding that he plans to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

The verdict is still far more than he'll ever be able to pay.

As for the hilited: :eusa_liar::eusa_liar::eusa_liar::eusa_liar:
 
SpitfireIX said:
"We had hoped the Appellate Court would have seen through the charade and farce that this trial became. It didn’t," Pattis said, adding that he plans to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

:eusa_liar:
Click to expand...
uh, yeah. Exactly who made that trial a farce, Pattis? It wasn't the parents who thought they could ignore discovery motions for years and years. It wasn't the parent's lawyers who finally sent the wrong info showing Jones was a complete liar.
 
Wonder if the victims who pledged their compensation share to Jones' other creditors as part of the Jones consortium bid (that lost) will now withdraw those pledges. So Jones will have a far lower pot of money to bid with next time. Which means the Onion will (should) win even easier next time.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Wonder if the victims who pledged their compensation share to Jones' other creditors as part of the Jones consortium bid (that lost) will now withdraw those pledges. So Jones will have a far lower pot of money to bid with next time. Which means the Onion will (should) win even easier next time.
Click to expand...

The families were supporting the Onion bid...
Although The Onion's cash offer was lower than that of First United American, it also included a pledge by many of the Sandy Hook families to forgo $750,000 of the auction proceeds due to them and give it to other creditors.
Click to expand...
 
arthwollipot said:
www.abc.net.au

Judge rejects the sale of Infowars to The Onion

At the end of a lengthy two-day hearing in a Texas courtroom, Judge Christopher Lopez criticised the auction process as flawed and said the outcome "left a lot of money on the table" for families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
What is it worth people like Trump and Jones that they get so many stupid decisions in their favour.
 
Well it looks like The Onion got denied by the judge. I'm not sure what the next move is but the judge determined that the offer from Jones' buddies was better than the deal worked out from The Onion. Taking the offer from The Onion would have "left money on the table". So a huge, huge win for Jones for sure.
 
plague311 said:
Well it looks like The Onion got denied by the judge. I'm not sure what the next move is but the judge determined that the offer from Jones' buddies was better than the deal worked out from The Onion. Taking the offer from The Onion would have "left money on the table". So a huge, huge win for Jones for sure.
Click to expand...
But did the judge accept the offer from Jones' buddies?
 
Orphia Nay said:
But did the judge accept the offer from Jones' buddies?
Click to expand...

Nope, he said both were too low. At this point I think it's kind of up in the air for the next 30 days, but Jones retains control during that period. Murray will come up with a plan forward during that time.
 
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but isn't it the case that the proceeds of the sale will go towards the families who sued Jones? So if they put up the money, they'll just get it straight back. I guess that would reduce the amount of cash they end up with....
 
plague311 said:
Well it looks like The Onion got denied by the judge. I'm not sure what the next move is but the judge determined that the offer from Jones' buddies was better than the deal worked out from The Onion. Taking the offer from The Onion would have "left money on the table". So a huge, huge win for Jones for sure.
Click to expand...
No that's not the ruling at all. The judge ruled that the auction was run fairly and impartially, but that the liquidators should have given more time to allow for newer and better bids to be submitted so that more of the value could be realised for the creditors.

My guess is that the same process will be run again but over a longer time period.
 
given that at least one of the plaintiffs desperately needs the money for lifesaving medical care, taking the time to wait for better offers might not be in the actual interests of the creditors.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
No that's not the ruling at all. The judge ruled that the auction was run fairly and impartially, but that the liquidators should have given more time to allow for newer and better bids to be submitted so that more of the value could be realised for the creditors.

My guess is that the same process will be run again but over a longer time period.
Click to expand...

That's not what the article that I read said, but I guess you know better.

Per the Associated Press:

Lopez said there was a lack of transparency in the bidding process and too much confusion about The Onion’s bid, and he expressed concern that the amount of money offered was too low.
The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, submitted a $1.75 million cash offer with plans to kick Jones out and relaunch Infowars in January as a parody. The bid also included a deal with many of the Sandy Hook families for them to forgo $750,000 of their auction proceeds and give it to other creditors.
Click to expand...

Which is quite literally what I said in my follow up post. The point you were making, per the Guardian:

Lopez said the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee who ran the auction made “a good-faith error” by quickly asking for final offers for Infowars instead of encouraging more back-and-forth bidding by the Onion and auction competitor First American United Companies, affiliated with Jones’s supplement-selling businesses, which was the runner-up.

“This should have been opened back up, and it should have been opened back up for everybody,” Lopez said. “It’s clear the trustee left the potential for a lot of money on the table.”
Click to expand...

So it looks like we were both right. Are you taking an issue with my statement that said that Jones's deal was better? I mean, kind of splitting hairs here since Jones's argument was that he should have had the opportunity to bid again, but whatever. I'm not in the mood to argue over dumb, petty ◊◊◊◊ this morning. At least not for awhile.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom