A U.S. bankruptcy court trustee is planning to shut down Alex Jones’ Infowars media platform and liquidate its assets to help pay the $1.5 billion in lawsuit judgments Jones owes for repeatedly calling the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting a hoax.
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’ parent company and “liquidate its inventory.” Murray, who was appointed by a federal judge to oversee the assets in Jones’ personal bankruptcy case, did not give a timetable for the liquidation.
Jones has been saying on his web and radio shows that he expects Infowars to operate for a few more months before it is shut down because of the bankruptcy. But he has vowed to continue his bombastic broadcasts in some other fashion, possibly on social media. He also had talked about someone else buying the company and allowing him to continue his shows as an employee.
Because defamation is illegal. And just because you don’t directly tell people to harass others, if you tell lies with the intention of that happening, it’s also illegal.
Also doesn’t help that he didn’t show up to several trials (which made him lose by default) and lied about damn near everything.
As for the amount, IDK. That part does seem excessive but even 5% of it would likely still bankrupt the guy.
The funny thing is, he absolutely did all those things. He sent “correspondents” to harass parents, on camera, at a funeral for the kids. He told viewers to follow and dox parents who tried to hide, and got one of his “investigators” to do a segment outside their home, after they had moved and changed their name.
He didn’t just mess with the trial, he did everything possible to derail and rig the legal process and was basically daring the judge to charge him with contempt. Including calling the judge a literal, biblical demon on the morning of a hearing.
The only tragedy here is that he didn’t have to sell everything off immediately, and instead got 2 years to burn as much as possible and hide the rest in his parents’ name.
Wouldn’t surprise me but I haven’t followed this THAT closely. I’ve got better things to do with my time than find out he’s an even bigger piece of shit than I already know he is.
deleted by creator
I remember someone saying he did these things but I acutally never saw evidence of it.
It always bothered me how you were not allowed to say what you want to the judge.
One of my friends was held in contempt of court and got all these crazy charges because he angrily slammed his skateboard down on the table and spoke back in a snippy manner… and I mean, really, it was quite strange because it was like this 20 year old young adult was being put through the ringer because the judge felt he did not have the right decorum in the court.
It’s quite merciless and bizarre approach in a free country - it’s what you’d expect from some stuffy colonial kangaroo court or Pomp & Circumstance 17th century butt-sniffer hearing:
Oh, you are going to call OUR JUDGE a NAME?! That’ll be half your monthly income and a weekend in jail, peasant!
Imagine court like a classroom, but with actual consequences attached. There are very basic rules, and you already know them. You don’t speak out of turn, you present your arguments with logic and respect, and you don’t ask an army of wackos to threaten the teacher for handing out homework.
So adults shouldn’t be allowed to share a negative opinion of a judge…? They should be treated like a child, who has to sit at a desk and can only provide polite, sweet, respectful feedback when asked…?
Why?
Why is that the model we should aim for in a free country?
I understand maintaining basic decorum so the judge can be heard and waiting one’s turn to talk, but why does the judge need to be treated like that? He’s not God; he’s not my dad; he’s someone who has to do his job, and I can have an opinion of him.
In a free country, decorum is not legally imposed.
I do not understand this - he advanced a conspiracy involving a mass shooting. Only in the most indirect way would he really be defaming anyone by implying that the official narrative is a lie. Potentially he has implied that the parents are in on the lie - I don’t see any other way as to how it would be remotely rational to charge him - but it seems a bit bizarre to not allow his right to free speech take precedent since he is commenting on a public event involving public discourse and it is not designed to deprive anyone involved of their civil rights or negatively impact their business.
I am not that familiar with him, but the guy seems unstable, and it would not be beyond the pale to suggest he has a psychological disorder that should be considered in this, right… If you were to tell me that Alex Jones has issues distinguishing truth from fiction and keeping a story straight in his head and was not to be held culpable in a conventional sense for the lies he said, I would not be surprised.
I suppose you’d need some court approved psychologist to make that part of the offiical narrative, but it certainly should be part of the unofficial considerations of everyone involved with this - we are taking a guy with very little credibility who is famous for having an audience of people who want to hear wild, crazy thing, either because they believe in garbage or for entertainment… Having him be seriously sued into the dirt and financially destroyed forever for this is pretty wild for any free country to do.
He didn’t imply the parents were lying. He said it directly. Among many other things.
The place for him to make your claims was court. And multiple juries found him guilty. I don’t see how you can claim free speech was breeched when multiple juries found him guilty. In different states. It’s not some one off.
And if you want to know about the cases, you can look them up. They’ll have all the facts presented to the court in them.
It does not matter much to me in this case what the courts decided because it clearly violates the principle of free speech as I understand it.
To me, these decisions represent the decay of all our rights.
Your rights end where other’s begin. I don’t see how you can have that opinion on this when those affected by it have had so much trouble in their lives as a result.
The decisions made by the courts aren’t new precedence. They’re upholding what is already there. You can say you don’t like it and that they got it wrong, but reality indicates otherwise.