Alex Jones' bad day

[John Smith]

Good to see some of the s**t catching up.

[Figment]

Saw a report that Jones filed for personal bankruptcy (in addition to his corporate bankruptcy) this morning, which prompted me to see this story I'd missed last week.....

Texas judge decides not to apply the state's $750k cap on punitive damages, he's on the hook for the full $49M judgement. (in addition to the $1B+ from the Connecticut case)

Of course he'll appeal this, but for the moment it seems like the system is working as intended. :golfclap:

[ron ll]

Except he’s still spewing vomit on his show.

[sonofswen]

Wishing every day is a bad day for Jones, that M&^er.

[John Meachen]

Will they encourage forensic accountants to scrutinise the comings and goings in his various bank accounts?

[Tom Wilkinson]

There should be a look back period covering any monies moved since the beginning of the lawsuits. Forensic accounting could find it.

[Nicholas Carey]

I've always thought that -- like student loans (!), alimony, child support, and fines, et al. -- damage awards arising from lawsuits should be non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

That man doesn’t know what a bad day is.

This man had a bad day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...%A7ois_Damiens

[stromborg]

It is well documented that Jones has been shifting assets around like crazy in an effort to hide his money. A judge stepped in and froze a lot of the shenanigans but we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out. Being a vile crackpot doesn't make him stupid, the wealthy have been using loopholes in bankruptcy laws to protect their wealth for a very long time. Google J&J and the "Texas Two Step" to really get your blood boiling.

[Gerarddm]

The kind of crazed filth being spewed by Kanye on Jones' show is perfect for Democrats. If Kanye actually mounts a presidential campaign ( being a tool of right wing whack jobs the way Herschel Walker is), it will drain off votes for Drumph and help ensure a Democratic victory.

[John Smith]

It is well documented that Jones has been shifting assets around like crazy in an effort to hide his money. A judge stepped in and froze a lot of the shenanigans but we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out. Being a vile crackpot doesn't make him stupid, the wealthy have been using loopholes in bankruptcy laws to protect their wealth for a very long time. Google J&J and the "Texas Two Step" to really get your blood boiling.

A larger question here: If he's losing suits for things he's said on his show, why's he still got the show?

[StevenBauer]

A larger question here: If he's losing suits for things he's said on his show, why's he still got the show?

Because lots of people make lots of money from the rubes who watch it.

[Joe (SoCal)]

Kanye West goes too far yet again, even for Alex Jones

[skuthorp]

[elf]

A larger question here: If he's losing suits for things he's said on his show, why's he still got the show?

Because the government hasn't got the balls to put him in jail where everyone else who has been convicted of what he's been convicted of is.

Same with Trump, Bannon.

Shut them down, close off the ways they can publicise their crap by putting them in prison where they can't broadcast it. They can still spout off, just not pollute the public airwaves.

[HRDavies]

Because the government hasn't got the balls to put him in jail where everyone else who has been convicted of what he's been convicted of is.

Same with Trump, Bannon.

Shut them down, close off the ways they can publicise their crap by putting them in prison where they can't broadcast it. They can still spout off, just not pollute the public airwaves.

When China just removes a wechat account it's censorship, a trampling of human rights, autocratic suppression of the people by a totalitarian dictatorship.

Which is correct ?

[elf]

Twitter, IG and FB and their kin are privately held companies. Freedom of Speech is a government matter, not a private matter.

The privately held companies can do whatever they deem appropriate for their business model. The government has to protect freedom of speech.

However, one still cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire.

Drawing the legally enforcable line is the current problem.

[HRDavies]

However, one still cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire.

That's exactly the position that they take, yet the vast majority of people here are incensed by that.

[John Smith]

When China just removes a wechat account it's censorship, a trampling of human rights, autocratic suppression of the people by a totalitarian dictatorship.

Which is correct ?

Bogus comparison. This man has been judged by juries. He's been told to pay tons of money to his victims. That's because he lied ON HIS SHOW.

Maybe it's just me, but that makes the show itself an accessory. He should be banned from it.

[John Smith]

Twitter, IG and FB and their kin are privately held companies. Freedom of Speech is a government matter, not a private matter.

The privately held companies can do whatever they deem appropriate for their business model. The government has to protect freedom of speech.

However, one still cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire.

Drawing the legally enforcable line is the current problem.

Free speech is not absolute. He's guilty of spreading lies that endangered people. He 'yelled Fire in that crowded theater' and along with paying the steep fines, He should be removed from the theater, which in this case is his show.

[HRDavies]

Bogus comparison.

No it's not a bogus comparison. It's the exact same thing, keeping people from lying on a widely-disseminated platform to influence the public in a deceitful manner.

It's a different method of approaching the problem but the intent is exactly the same.

I can understand the fixation with free speech but freedom to lie, sorry, not something that should be protected imo.

[elf]

Free speech is not absolute. He's guilty of spreading lies that endangered people. He 'yelled Fire in that crowded theater' and along with paying the steep fines, He should be removed from the theater, which in this case is his show.

Absolutely. And so also Trump and Bannon and Fox "News".

[HRDavies]

Absolutely. And so also Trump and Bannon and Fox "News".

I'm agreeing with you. The only thing is, when China does it you hate it and scream "censorship !"

[Peerie Maa]

No it's not a bogus comparison. It's the exact same thing, keeping people from lying on a widely-disseminated platform to influence the public in a deceitful manner.

It's a different method of approaching the problem but the intent is exactly the same.

I can understand the fixation with free speech but freedom to lie, sorry, not something that should be protected imo.

It is not bogus.
Jones has been convicted of disseminating lies and harming people.
China is censoring its citizens for telling inconvenient TRUTH.
See the difference?

[skuthorp]

Our 5th column contributor is at least consistent. False equivalents as per usual.
The Chinese Communist Party has a chieved amazing results at a big price of lives and freedoms. But under that nothing has changed. As in Russia, the 'emperor' is still the emperor and his courtiers as careless of his subjects as they always were. Only the names have changed

[HRDavies]

It is not bogus.
Jones has been convicted of disseminating lies and harming people.
China is censoring its citizens for telling inconvenient TRUTH.
See the difference?

Yeah right. As usual, you know nothing of the subject. You couldn't even order a bowl of noodles in China but don't let that stop you from running off at the mouth.

In reality, a certain degree of censorship is probably desirable in any society. Y'all just avoid that logical conclusion by coming up with a bunch of convoluted reasoning. Society doesn't need snuff films, for example, but rather than admit that some things should be censored, you'll come up with some bizarre "fire in the theater" rationale to justify sitting on both sides of the fence.

[Figment]

A larger question here: If he's losing suits for things he's said on his show, why's he still got the show?

Because part of the bankruptcy process is keeping you in business so you can pay your debts.
Otherwise the first-in-line leaves the company without assets to function and the rest of those owed money are out of luck.

The fact that the core of the business is evil is irrelevant to that process.

[ron ll]

So we let him continue to do what he was fined for so he can pay the fines.

[Peerie Maa]

Yeah right. As usual, you know nothing of the subject. You couldn't even order a bowl of noodles in China but don't let that stop you from running off at the mouth.

In reality, a certain degree of censorship is probably desirable in any society. Y'all just avoid that logical conclusion by coming up with a bunch of convoluted reasoning. Society doesn't need snuff films, for example, but rather than admit that some things should be censored, you'll come up with some bizarre "fire in the theater" rationale to justify sitting on both sides of the fence.

If insults and snark is all that you have got, we are at pot meet kettle, with a vengeance.

Fire in a theatre is a US thing. You might have noticed that I am British, I have a different view of censorship than our American cousins, but I can recognize BS when I read it.

[HRDavies]

Our 5th column contributor

You mean a person who actually lives in the country you so freely criticize ? This is the view out my window right this second, what's yours ?

rightnow.jpg

I will freely accept your superior knowledge of kangaroos ... but not a place you know nothing about except for malicious gossip.

False equivalents as per usual.

That would be equivalence, actually. And no, censorship is censorship. You just want to weasel-word around it. Doesn't work that way.

[L.W. Baxter]

…censorship is censorship…

nope. a totalitarian regime silencing reporting of actual events, censoring and jailing dissidents, is nothing like a democratic society de-platforming paranoid conspiracy theorists and violent rhetoric for the protection, not of the current administrators, but of democracy itself.

[Osborne Russell]

Yeah right. As usual, you know nothing of the subject. You couldn't even order a bowl of noodles in China but don't let that stop you from running off at the mouth.

An utterly ad hom, specious and mean-spirited argument from authority. Further, there are serioius gaps in your conception of free speech:

In reality, a certain degree of censorship is probably desirable in any society. Y'all just avoid that logical conclusion by coming up with a bunch of convoluted reasoning.

Probably? Human rights ought to be respected probably?

And this probability is logical? It's moral, or it's nothing.

Free speech doesn't avoid the doctrine you put forward, it rejects it; and the reasons are simple.

Society doesn't need snuff films, for example . . .

Society needs the protection of human rights.

. . .but rather than admit that some things should be censored, you'll come up with some bizarre "fire in the theater" rationale to justify sitting on both sides of the fence.

"Fire in a theater" is not "bizarre". Neither is national security secrecy. Both are areas in which there is no right to free speech. Simple as can be.

[Keith Wilson]

If insults and snark is all that you have got . . .

It isn't all he has, but it's way too large a percentage to make it worth your while.

[Nicholas Carey]

Because part of the bankruptcy process is keeping you in business so you can pay your debts.
Otherwise the first-in-line leaves the company without assets to function and the rest of those owed money are out of luck.

Willing to bet Jones has filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation) that discharges his debts, not a Chapter 13 bankruptcy (wage-earners plan) which doesn't discharge the debts.

The point of the exercise for Jones is to escape liability.

He has a job because hate radio doesn't care (though you'd think his employers' lawyers would have him on a short leash lest they be next.

https://www.wawb.uscourts.gov/cs-cha...ankruptcy-code

Chapter 7 refers to a liquidation" bankruptcy and is designed for individuals and businesses in financial difficulty who do not have the ability to pay their existing debts. A chapter 7 requires a debtor to give up property which exceeds certain limits called exemptions, so the property can be sold by the trustee to pay creditors according to priorities of the Bankruptcy Code. In exchange, a debtor is allowed to keep exempt property and receives a discharge (a court order that releases a debtor from personal liability for certain specific debts). If all the debtor's assets are exempt or if minimal assets are found, the case will be a "no-asset case," with no distribution to creditors.

Chapter 13, also known as a "wage earner's plan," enables individuals with regular income and debts that are below certain statutory limits to develop a plan to repay all or part of their debts over a three to five year period. Payments are made to a chapter 13 standing trustee, who makes distributions to creditors according to the provisions of a confirmed plan. Filing a chapter 13 case allows debtors to keep valuable property – especially a home and car – which might otherwise be lost to foreclosure or repossession, if the debtor can make the payments which the bankruptcy law requires to be made to creditors. In most cases, payments will be equal to the regular monthly payments on the mortgage or car loan, with some additional payment to get caught up on the amount the debtor has fallen behind. Corporations and partnerships may not file under chapter 13.

[Figment]

the personal bankruptcy was reported as chapter 11

for his corporate I think he filed chapter 5 but I think that was being challenged because his business is too big for chapter 5.