The only thing I disagree with is punitive damages which are out of all proportion to the loss incurred. Punitive damages are only allowed in limited circumstances in my country, England, and they are still limited to some connection between the wrong and the alleged loss.
Make no mistake though, Jones is a scumbag. If he had followed the rules the other side would have had to prove actual malice. He did not follow the rules and he lost because of it.
…for speech. If this is your position then you need to state it in its entirety and stand by it.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Come on, say that outright and with no ambiguity, and then stick around and defend your belief. I’d love to finally meet someone who believes this who has the courage to say it and defend it, but so far, without exception, everyone I’ve encountered who believes what you believe has turned out to be a coward.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit. You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never been challenged and never needed to defend your positions. So you assume you must be right …. because after all, nobody has ever proved you wrong. But the truth is, this is the very first time in your life where proving you wrong was even allowed.
Some come on! Don’t be a coward! Confirm that you think a person should be punished for their speech.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit.
Wrong - he's been on this side of the Internet for a while; he showed up from time to time on KIA1 back when we were all on Reddit circa 2015. And he's been pushing for censorship the entire time. He knows exactly what he's saying and for some reason chooses to say it anyway.
Alex Jones deserved to be punished. He was the subject of a default judgment due to litigation misconduct. He did not answer questions or comply with discovery. After he lost and had damages awarded against him, the bankruptcy court found he could not discharge many of his debts in bankruptcy due to "wilful or malicious injury".
The only thing I disagree with is punitive damages which are out of all proportion to the loss incurred. Punitive damages are only allowed in limited circumstances in my country, England, and they are still limited to some connection between the wrong and the alleged loss.
Make no mistake though, Jones is a scumbag. If he had followed the rules the other side would have had to prove actual malice. He did not follow the rules and he lost because of it.
…for speech. If this is your position then you need to state it in its entirety and stand by it.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Come on, say that outright and with no ambiguity, and then stick around and defend your belief. I’d love to finally meet someone who believes this who has the courage to say it and defend it, but so far, without exception, everyone I’ve encountered who believes what you believe has turned out to be a coward.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit. You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never been challenged and never needed to defend your positions. So you assume you must be right …. because after all, nobody has ever proved you wrong. But the truth is, this is the very first time in your life where proving you wrong was even allowed.
Some come on! Don’t be a coward! Confirm that you think a person should be punished for their speech.
Wrong - he's been on this side of the Internet for a while; he showed up from time to time on KIA1 back when we were all on Reddit circa 2015. And he's been pushing for censorship the entire time. He knows exactly what he's saying and for some reason chooses to say it anyway.