Infowars host Alex Jones files for personal bankruptcy

Jones filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in bankruptcy court in Houston. His filing lists $1 billion to $10 billion in liabilities.

I wonder if he can still find a way to profit from all those clicks from the Ye interview.

Bankruptcy never stopped the dear leader from grifting and his foot soldiers follow in his footsteps.

Another pathetic MAGA clown that bites the dust..

Blockhead Jones is already morally bankrupt.

What about jerks like Kathy Griffin, Steven Colbert, Trevor Noah should they be held to account for the things they say or do?

None of those people lied about the victims of Sandyhook for profit. What exactly should they be to account for?

Well that's a new one.

"Did you hear about Alex Jones and what he did to those families?"

"Sure, but did you hear about.....Trevor Naoh?"

What an odd exchange.

What about jerks like Kathy Griffin, Stephen Colbert, and Trevor Noah should they be held to account for the things they say or do?

None of them denied Sandy Hook or any other mass killings. What is it you think they have done?

Supporter of Blockhead Jones and Joe Rogan.

What about jerks like Kathy Griffin, Stephen Colbert, and Trevor Noah should they be held to account for the things they say or do?

By the same standards the left are holding Jones to.

None of them denied Sandy Hook or any other mass killings. What is it you think they have done?

I understand, and it was wrong no doubt about it, but that doesn’t absolve holding everyone to the same standards of slander.

You can run, but you can’t hide (your assets), Alex.

I understand, and it was wrong no doubt about it, but that doesn’t absolve holding everyone to the same standards of slander.

Just imagine it’s comedy ‘free speech’. Why do you want to cancel their voices? /s

Kathy Griffin, Stephen Colbert, and Trevor Noah

When did they commit slander? None have been sued.

By the same standards, the left is holding Jones too.

Actually, it was the courts that decided against Blockhead Jones.

“bass4funk” you misspelled it.

Of course, as should anyone. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.

Well, I agree and that’s why I made that comment.

Now do tell, what did they say or do that would be justiciable?

Take your pick, in Griffin’s case holding a severed mock head of the former President for example, the daily insensitive remarks from Colbert, so again, hold them all to the same standards of slander and conduct or just the people the left disapprove of? I’m just asking.

bass4funk

so you didn't want to sue Kathy Griffin, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, and no one else too.

Bass4funk - anyone who thinks they have a case where they can prove damages is welcome to file suit against those folks, just as the families of the murdered schoolchildren did with Jones. If there is a chance of being awarded damages, then you can be sure some attorney somewhere will take up the case.

Take your pick, in Griffin’s case holding a severed mock head of the former President for example, the daily insensitive remarks from Colbert, so again, hold them all to the same standards of slander and conduct or just the people the left disapprove of? I’m just asking.

Neither one of those equates to slander or libel. Telling an offensive, but obvious joke, isn't libel or slander. Some people really need to grow thicker skin, and maybe learn to act in ways that won't get them mocked.

Presenting disinformation about the victims of Sandyhook as crisis actors on a supposed news show, on the other hand, is.

Again, it is very odd seeing the supposed "free speech" advocates now calling for people to be punished for exercising their free speech.

Oh, you mean they need to be held to account for the mean jokes they told about celebrities and politicians?

According to liberal standards yes. Again, not defending Jones, but the man has the right to believe whatever he wants, which is different from what he was saying, but when it comes to his personal beliefs he can believe whatever he wants.

This is exactly why free speech exists, cry me a river.

You would think so, unless it’s targeted towards liberals.

If people on the "left" tell lies about Sandyhook victims etc., I am sure they will be held to the same standard.

I’m not so sure, not buying that one.

Telling jokes isn't slander. In fact, it's one of the defenses to slander/libel.

Maybe Jones thought what he said was a joke. Can you prove that in his mind he wasn’t joking? Yes or No?

Blockhead Jones only succeeded by pushing fake news and conspiracies.

You would think so, unless it’s targeted towards liberals.

Not once have I advocated for limiting speech because I found it distasteful. Please.

Maybe Jones thought what he said was a joke. Can you prove that in his mind he wasn’t joking? Yes or No?

Well, the court's ruled against him, so obviously they didn't see it as a joke.

You can run, but you can’t hide (your assets), Alex.

Oh yes, you most definitely can.

Not once have I advocated for limiting speech because I found it distasteful. Please.

Hmmmm

Well, the court's ruled against him, so obviously they didn't see it as a joke.

To the courts, I see. In other words, it depends on if and when you’re sued, a judge and jury will decide what’s a joke and what isn’t. So it depends on whom you offend.

Interesting….

Ok, point made, Bass. Time to move on.

America has libel and slander laws so there can be consequences for free speech. It was the parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook who sued Blockhead Jones. Nothing to do with the left. He also had to admit he lied about the mass shooting.

Ok, point made, Bass. Time to move on.

Relax, Super.

Nothing to do with the left. He also had to admit he lied about the mass shooting.

Actually, it does when you are citing these laws, but downplay them when it comes to conservatives you guys are somehow incognito or rant how these people have the right to express themselves.

To the courts, I see. In other words, it depends on if and when you’re sued, a judge and jury will decide what’s a joke and what isn’t.

lol Yes, Bass, when you're sued, you hire a lawyer, and the plaintiff hires a lawyer. The lawyers and their clients go over the facts, and present them to the courts, and then based on the facts presented, the courts issue a ruling. Yes, that is exactly how lawsuits work.

So it depends on whom you offend.

lol If Kathy Griffin, Colbert, and Noah have all committed treason, why doesn't Trump or other politicians sue them? I'll tell you why: It'd be a ridiculous suit that'd be laughed out of court. They're all comedians. They get paid to tell jokes, and sometimes those jokes are offensive. Sometimes they poke fun at people, and that is perfectly legal.

You can run, but you can’t hide (your assets), Alex.

Oh yes, you most definitely can.

Nope. It leaves a trail. If the government or the plaintiffs have the will (spoiler alert: they do) they’re going to find them. They’re going to freeze them. They’re going to seize them.

An idiot rube like Alex outsmarting a motivated plaintiff’s counsel only exists in the minds of those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

When one draws moral or civil equivalency between a man who claimed the murder of children was a hoax - and trafficked in subsequent lies about their families - for years, and comedians as bass4spunk does, one is really out of excuses.

This is bottom of the barrel Pee Wee Herman logic.

That's how I understand the process, yes. But I might be wrong, I'm not an US citizen and US law is almost as weird as that completely off-kilter "left vs right" political system of yours.

Weird? More like the laws are not being implemented properly. As for the political system, it all depends on what you grew up with and used to..

Well, Kathy Griffin apparantly did not offend The Bestest President

Actually, she did, not just him but other Americans as well. If someone did that to President 44 you think people just shrug their shoulders and say, “get over it, it was a joke and the guy has thick skin?” Yeah, you go and believe that. Lol

@bass

The tried and trusted ‘what about the libs?’ line isn’t cutting it here.

Let this one go.

Jones is an awful human being. He deserves to be ruined.

lol Yes, Bass, when you're sued, you hire a lawyer, and the plaintiff hires a lawyer. The lawyers and their clients go over the facts, and present them to the courts, and then based on the facts presented, the courts issue a ruling. Yes, that is exactly how lawsuits work.

Ok, so if the lawyers hate your politics your screwed, if they like you, you get a break. I see.

lol If Kathy Griffin, Colbert, and Noah have all committed treason,

Treason? Where did that come from?

why doesn't Trump or other politicians sue them? I'll tell you why: It'd be a ridiculous suit that'd be laughed out of court.

Again, depends on your political standing

They're all comedians.

So why are people so angry at Dave Chappelle? That’s kind of a difficult one to tackle, isn’t it. The guy isn’t white or conservative, so now what?

Bass, if laws were broken or people’s rights were violated, then those harmed should sue.

The tried and trusted ‘what about the libs?’ line isn’t cutting it here. 

Let this one go. 

No, I think this is a legitimate and valid concern

Jones is an awful human being. He deserves to be ruined.

Not arguing that, but ruined? That’s why he filed bankruptcy in order to NOT be completely ruined.

No, I think this is a legitimate and valid concern

lol No one else does.

The "victims" of Colbert and Noah could sue at any time and they don't. One really should ask why that is.

Anyone can express an opinion about another but if they cross a line they are open to slander and libel which the parents of Sandy Hook did against Blockhead Jones.

In 2020 there were 152 court-filed claims of defamations. 2019 325 cases.

   Well, Kathy Griffin apparantly did not offend The Bestest President

> Actually, she did, not just him but other Americans as well. If someone did that to President 44 you think people just shrug their shoulders and say, “get over it, it was a joke and the guy has thick skin?” Yeah, you go and believe that. Lol

Trump could have sued if he felt hurt. Griffins apologised for her actions. Other Americans could not sue because they were not directly hurt.

wallaceToday  10:22 am JST

Trump could have sued if he felt hurt. Griffins apologised for her actions. Other Americans could not sue because they were not directly hurt.

Hurt feelings don't mean damages recoverable.

Hurt feelings don't mean damages recoverable.

Exactly right. It's not libel or slander just because one is a delicate child.

lol No one else does. 

This is why no one takes the left seriously.

The "victims" of Colbert and Noah could sue at any time and they don't. One really should ask why that is.

Yes, Politics

Trump could have sued if he felt hurt.

He doesn’t have to sue. Libs are the ones that think if you personally hurt their feelings you need to sue for compensation. Don’t even go there. Again, had it been President 44, the howls and condemnation from the left would be deafening.

Griffins apologised for her actions.

So that means she has to be forgiven? Jones apologized, by your logic we should forgive him as well, right?

bassfunk

The parents of Sandy Hook were not liberals. Three defamation lawsuits were won against Blockhead Jones.

Bankruptcy does not protect assets from judgment as a result of an intentional wrong.

Jones major creditors (in addition to the families) are himself and his parents. It’s an obvious shell game.

One would have to be an idiot to believe that the plaintiffs or the courts for that matter, would just shrug their shoulders and say “gosh, you got us” and give.

If I were a plaintiff, I would be extra-special motivated to get his assets and make him pay.

Fun Fact: the DOJ has a department specifically to address bankruptcy fraud - people who attempt to use the law to escape legitimate claims to their assets.

That sound familiar?

The idiot is not only incentivizing the parents to dig in, he’s opening himself to criminal liability.

Well done, Alex.

The parents of Sandy Hook were not liberals.

You don’t know that and that wasn’t the issue. Jones did what he did. The question is, would the left be equally outraged if the person were a liberal and so far based on the comments it seems most libs would give a liberal a slight pass

Oh, politics is the reason that Trump or any of the other "victims" of Colbert and Noah's slander/libel don't sue for such? Makes total sense. ;)

It’s not about suing someone, it’s about politics as usual.

A Texas district court judge has ruled that Infowars host Alex Jones must pay the parents of a 6-year-old killed in the Sandy Hook shooting the full $49 million in damages in a defamation lawsuit, despite a state law that limits the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in civil suits.

Those Texas liberals again!

It’s not about suing someone, it’s about politics as usual.

lol No. It is about suing. Libel/slander are civil torts, and as such the remedy is a lawsuit. Yet that doesn't happen; because nothing Colbert or Noah does is slander or libel- they're comedians. Alex jones isn't.

How about the Texas court that ruled against Jones? LiBeRaL too? :D

It’s in Southwest, so yes.

lol No. It is about suing.

Jones, yes and no. For the families it’s not, for the left and media, it is all about politics.

Libel/slander are civil torts, and as such the remedy is a lawsuit. Yet that doesn't happen; because nothing Colbert or Noah does is slander or libel- they're comedians.Alex jones isn't.

Ok, so it basically politically depends on who the individual is

It’s in Southwest, so yes.

Ah yes, if you're in southwest Texas you're a LiBeRaL! ;)

Ok, so it basically politically depends on who the individual is

lol No. It's the difference between telling jokes for a living, and producing a fake news broadcast that claims the victims of one of the US' worst mass shootings were paid crisis actors. Do you find any of that funny? What part of that do you Jones was joking about? I found absolutely nothing about that funny.

bassfunk

your spectrum only goes left or right. Like tunnel vision.

Blockhead Jones is a nasty little man who caused great hurt to the parents of the brutally murders Sandy Hook children.

His politics have nothing to do with it, except for people like you. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum it would still have been hurtful and wrong to state that Sandy Hook was a government conspiracy and never happened.

The court found in favor of the plaintiffs because it was the right decision to make.

Cards fanToday  10:48 am JST

How about the Texas court that ruled against Jones? LiBeRaL too? :D

Travis County is Democrat, so yes, liberal too. :D

Bob FosseToday  10:48 am JST

Anyone defending jones is obviously either mentally deficient, looking for attention or just doing it for giggles. The examples, as we’ve seen, are plentiful.

As Americans know, In the US legal system, defendants have the right to legal representation.

So, you want to throw insults at his legal team, who were just doing their job?

Hysterical.

As Americans know, In the US legal system, defendants have the right to legal representation.

As Americans know, this is relevant in criminal cases- not civil cases.

As Americans know, In the US legal system, defendants have the right to legal representation.

This is true for criminal, not Civil cases.

Perhaps you need to refer to your box-set of JAG to refresh your knowledge of the legal system, lol.

Cards fanToday  11:01 am JST

As Americans know, this is relevant in criminal cases- not civil cases.

Nope the right to an attorney is relevant in criminal cases.

In civil cases, the right to be represented by legl counsel exists, so that the defendant can choose to have himself represented in legal proceedings and hire a legal team like Jones did.

A defendant cannot be prevented from having legal counsel represent him in a civil matter, in general.

So, you want to throw insults at his legal team, who were just doing their job?

I was referring to the posters here defending jones, not his legal team.

Those defending jones again just repeatedly get outsmarted and outgunned. Throw in the towel, can’t win, it’s not a good look for anyone.

Ah yes, if you're in southwest Texas you're a LiBeRaL! ;)

They vote in that part of Texas predominantly liberal, kinda like Orange County votes predominantly conservative.

lol No.

Yes, it’s definitely political selection.

It's the difference between telling jokes for a living, and producing a fake news broadcast that claims the victims of one of the US' worst mass shootings were paid crisis actors.

I understand, so then why are the left so conflicted with going after Chappelle?

Do you find any of that funny?

Of course not.

This week Blockhead Jones had the anti-Semitic Kanye West on this podcast with his head covered in a black head mask and black gloves. Musk has suspended the Twitter account of West for wearing a Star of David with a swastika in its center at his announcement to run for president in 2024.

Perhaps you need to refer to your box-set of JAG to refresh your knowledge of the legal system, lol.

Or ask a non American to clarify for you lol

Bass - is someone suing Chappelle?

I guess if I was Blockhead Jones I would be angry with my legal council for its failure in the largest defamation award in the history of the country. Will he still pay them?

The plaintiff's lawyers will be on a percentage of the awards and will go after every Jones cent they can.

your spectrum only goes left or right. Like tunnel vision.

Same as yours.

Blockhead Jones is a nasty little man who caused great hurt to the parents of the brutally murders Sandy Hook children.

Yes, it was disgusting.

His politics have nothing to do with it, except for people like you.

No, as I said before, the left are trying to figure out how to nail Dave Chappelle, him not being white makes it very difficult to do so.

The court found in favor of the plaintiffs because it was the right decision to make.

Sure.

Bob FosseToday  11:06 am JST

I was referring to the posters here defending jones, not his legal team. 

Those defending jones again just repeatedly get outsmarted and outgunned. Throw in the towel, can’t win, it’s not a good look for anyone.

Can you present an example of someone defending Jones here?

Cards fanToday  10:59 am JST

lol No. It's the difference between telling jokes for a living, and producing a fake news broadcast that claims the victims of one of the US' worst mass shootings were paid crisis actors. Do you find any of that funny? What part of that do you Jones was joking about? I found absolutely nothing about that funny.

It's not funny when the right to freedom of expression is trampled because someone's feelings are hurt.

Bass - did Chapelle do something justiciable?

The U.S. Constitution grants no categorical right to counsel in civil cases.

NemoToday  11:05 am JST

This is true for criminal, not Civil cases. 

Perhaps you need to refer to your box-set of JAG to refresh your knowledge of the legal system, lol.

You misunderstood--and took the bait too.

Many civil courts won't even allow a defendant to appear without local counsel.

But no court can prohibit a defendant in a civil matter from having legal representation.

Does that help your knowledge of the legal system?

It's not funny when the right to freedom of expression is trampled because someone's feelings are hurt.

You don't have a legal right to slander/Libel. This is what the courts have found Alex Jones did, and I hope they take him for every penny he's worth

If only jones had hired an ace legal team. They could have used the ‘what about Colbert’ defense. It would have been a sure fire winner.

bass4funk

No, as I said before, the left are trying to figure out how to nail Dave Chappelle, him not being white makes it very difficult to do so.

I don't think so. So the left gives Kanye West a free hand because he is black?

Nope the right to an attorney is relevant in criminal cases.

Nope, wrong again. In a criminal case, the Constitutional right to counsel means if you cannot pay for a lawyer the state is legally obligated to provide you with (crappy) legal representation.

This is not true in civil matters.

If you cannot pay for a lawyer or if (as is becoming likely) no lawyer wants to be associated with you, you’re out of luck.

It’s like McDonalds. If you have the money and the store hasn’t banned you, anyone can get a burger there.

The state is not obligated to buy you a Big Mac if you’re broke or such an ass they won’t sell to you.

Can you present an example of someone defending Jones here?

Why, yes indeed I can:

“Good for Jones using the system that crucified him, to protect his assets..”

Or did you mean the numerous times other than this morning?

Making a martyr out of jones is not a good look. I’m sure you can do better.

Right to legal counsel in a civil law suit only if you can afford one. Millions cannot, like in the cases of landlords and tenants.

NemoToday  11:23 am JST

Nope, wrong again. In a criminal case, the Constitutional right to counsel means if you cannot pay for a lawyer the state is legally obligated to provide you with (crappy) legal representation. 

You misunderstood. Go back and read again what I wrote.

This is not true in civil matters. 

If you cannot pay for a lawyer or if (as is becoming likely) no lawyer wants to be associated with you, you’re out of luck.

Wrong.

In California for example, appointment of counsel in conservatorship cases is guaranteed. Also, California statutes require appointment of counsel in guardianship and conservatorship proceedings, but there are conditions.

did Chapelle do something justiciable?

Yes, he deeply offended the left, but they’re conflicted in how to cancel him because he’s not white or conservative, a double whammy.

Bob FosseToday  11:24 am JST

Why, yes indeed I can:

“Good for Jones using the system that crucified him, to protect his assets..”

Or did you mean the numerous times other than this morning?

Making a martyr out of jones is not a good look. I’m sure you can do better.

That is defending Jones? It is criticizing the system.

That bothers you?

As an American, it bothers me when basic rights are trampled by the government.

Those are inherent rights we as US citizens hold valuable.

In California for example, appointment of counsel in conservatorship cases is guaranteed. Also, California statutes require appointment of counsel in guardianship and conservatorship proceedings, but there are conditions.

California isn't the United States. There's no constitutional right to legal defense in civil cases like you claimed. Now you're trying to post-hoc validate your obviously wrong claim.