Lawyers for several families of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting are criticizing Alex Jones' personal spending as they seek nearly $1.5 billion they won in lawsuits against the Infowars host.
I think it's about time for society to have some frank discussions about this. As I understand it, he's still at the helm because not having him in charge of these companies would hurt their ability to function, as he's the sole reason people even pay them attention.
Having him in charge, spewing rhetoric and generally existing in spite of numerous civil judgements, continues to harm a portion of the population.
I don't think he can be sent to prison for these specific civil judgments but I'm not a lawyer. He's presumably paying for the court fines (to the governments bodies) but not the civil judgements (to the individual parties who have sued him). Seizing his businesses will almost certainly reduce their value, but it's probably worth more than the near $0 that he's currently paying back as ordered.
If this were happening to any non-rich person, they'd be living in squalor or severely under-employed to fight the system. They don't get to spend more money in a month than the average American makes in a year, no matter the games they are playing.
This is exactly what I am thinking. He is obviously trying to game the system but he is on borrowed time. His actions show that he can make payments but the fact that he cant make payments if his assets are seized is interesting. Thats why I asked what is he expected to do if the court is asking for way more than is possible.
Let's assume that financial slavery is not something that the United States allows. We shouldn't force a person to live the rest of their life allocating 100% of their income to garnish debts. That's indentured slavery with extra legal steps. I think that's probably a reasonable take for most of the population.
Let's also assume that you don't get a ~1.5 aggregate billion dollar judgement against you without you being responsible for it. This dude clearly has been judged by society and the result is that he needs to remit payment to atone for his mistakes. His previous business status and incomes may have eventually been able to pay that off, but the mere existence of the judgement completely obliterates his ability to pay. We're in limbo here - it seems wrong to let him continue being himself, as that's a big reason why he's been judged against in the first place, but not letting him be himself hurts his ability to make good on the payments required of him.
If the government seizes his assets, he will in no way be able to cover the full amounts that have been ordered. The people will get some small portion of what they are owed. Nobody really is made whole. Alex Jones 'loses,' but continues to live. How much money should he be allowed to keep to himself for rent, utilities, food, transportation, liberties, etc? Should that money instead be actively sent to the other parties in perpetuity until the debt is repaid? Does Alex Jones have any incentive to keep living in that case? Are we then indirectly advocating for death as a result of the inability to repay civil debts?
I'm just going on a rant at this point. Sucks for the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre and all those who have had to deal with his bullshit. I don't think anybody will ever be made whole or happy from this train of events, but I know for sure that there's a line that we as a society shouldn't entertain crossing.
This is the comment I wanted to see. I feel like this case might be used later as an example of what not to do. Yes he is an asshole but thats his brand, take that away and he wont be able to be good on paying. The only way out is him serving life in prison over this but i think thats unprecedented.
I'm hoping that these kinds of conversations are happening behind closed doors, because I sure don't see them happening in the media at large.
I do feel that my line of thought is creeping into the "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" territory, but I have no dog in this fight, so I think that's a luxury I can take.
So i was thinking about this again, and I was wondering… do you think this might be taken to the Supreme Court as it might be infringing on the 4th amendment as an unreasonable seizure? Would that be why they are holding off? Is there any standing on that
I think it's about time for society to have some frank discussions about this. As I understand it, he's still at the helm because not having him in charge of these companies would hurt their ability to function, as he's the sole reason people even pay them attention.
Having him in charge, spewing rhetoric and generally existing in spite of numerous civil judgements, continues to harm a portion of the population.
I don't think he can be sent to prison for these specific civil judgments but I'm not a lawyer. He's presumably paying for the court fines (to the governments bodies) but not the civil judgements (to the individual parties who have sued him). Seizing his businesses will almost certainly reduce their value, but it's probably worth more than the near $0 that he's currently paying back as ordered.
If this were happening to any non-rich person, they'd be living in squalor or severely under-employed to fight the system. They don't get to spend more money in a month than the average American makes in a year, no matter the games they are playing.
This is exactly what I am thinking. He is obviously trying to game the system but he is on borrowed time. His actions show that he can make payments but the fact that he cant make payments if his assets are seized is interesting. Thats why I asked what is he expected to do if the court is asking for way more than is possible.
There's no answer which is both easy and 'just.'
Let's assume that financial slavery is not something that the United States allows. We shouldn't force a person to live the rest of their life allocating 100% of their income to garnish debts. That's indentured slavery with extra legal steps. I think that's probably a reasonable take for most of the population.
Let's also assume that you don't get a ~1.5 aggregate billion dollar judgement against you without you being responsible for it. This dude clearly has been judged by society and the result is that he needs to remit payment to atone for his mistakes. His previous business status and incomes may have eventually been able to pay that off, but the mere existence of the judgement completely obliterates his ability to pay. We're in limbo here - it seems wrong to let him continue being himself, as that's a big reason why he's been judged against in the first place, but not letting him be himself hurts his ability to make good on the payments required of him.
If the government seizes his assets, he will in no way be able to cover the full amounts that have been ordered. The people will get some small portion of what they are owed. Nobody really is made whole. Alex Jones 'loses,' but continues to live. How much money should he be allowed to keep to himself for rent, utilities, food, transportation, liberties, etc? Should that money instead be actively sent to the other parties in perpetuity until the debt is repaid? Does Alex Jones have any incentive to keep living in that case? Are we then indirectly advocating for death as a result of the inability to repay civil debts?
I'm just going on a rant at this point. Sucks for the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre and all those who have had to deal with his bullshit. I don't think anybody will ever be made whole or happy from this train of events, but I know for sure that there's a line that we as a society shouldn't entertain crossing.
This is the comment I wanted to see. I feel like this case might be used later as an example of what not to do. Yes he is an asshole but thats his brand, take that away and he wont be able to be good on paying. The only way out is him serving life in prison over this but i think thats unprecedented.
I'm hoping that these kinds of conversations are happening behind closed doors, because I sure don't see them happening in the media at large.
I do feel that my line of thought is creeping into the "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" territory, but I have no dog in this fight, so I think that's a luxury I can take.
So i was thinking about this again, and I was wondering… do you think this might be taken to the Supreme Court as it might be infringing on the 4th amendment as an unreasonable seizure? Would that be why they are holding off? Is there any standing on that