December 11, 2024
"A bankruptcy judge on Tuesday rejected a bid by The Onion’s parent company to buy Alex Jones’ far-right media empire, including the website Infowars..."
"... ruling that the auction process was unfair. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez said after a two-day hearing that The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, had not submitted the best bid and was wrongly named the winner of an auction last month by a court-appointed trustee.... Jones went live from a studio soon after the ruling and told viewers: 'We can celebrate the judge doing the right thing.' He had previously referred to the sale process as 'auction fraud' and a 'fraudulent sale.' Onion CEO Ben Collins said in a statement on X that the company... would 'continue to seek a path towards purchasing InfoWars in the coming weeks.' 'It is part of our larger mission to make a better, funnier internet, regardless of the outcome of this case,' he said...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
That is working out well for The Onion. They got the publicity for buying InfoWars without having to pay for it.
Michael Bloomberg's propaganda outfit strikes out once again, per the obsolete and perhaps the world's longest directly readable URL:
https://www.everytown.org/press/the-onion-with-the-support-of-sandy-hook-families-acquires-infowars-and-announces-everytown-for-gun-safety-as-exclusive-advertiser-for-launch-along-with-multi-year-agreement/
The Onion was borrowing against the InfoWars assets to finance the purchase as well, which is not how bankruptcy auctions usually work. I feel for the Sandy Hook families but the judgement was excessive relative to Jones’s actions. Then to use the bankruptcy auction to inflict more punishment was an improper use of bankruptcy court. This whole episode has become so extraordinary that there are no “good guys” left among the participants.
Entry for this week’s New Yorker caption contest: “Same thing happened to the Onion, it’s just not funny anymore”
Despite the best efforts of law professors, once in a while the system seems to work.
Maybe the Babylon Bee could buy it and hire Jones to run it as part of the Not The Bee operation
John Henry
"a better, funnier internet."
It's good to have a goal.
That's good. Because they can't.
The problem is that Not the Bee reports actual news.
The Onion hasn't been funny since they went to the internet.
So does Alex Jones, Mostly. That is why I didn't say the Bee but rather the Not the Bee.
Jones problem is that he reports it in advance. It is usually called conspiracy theory for a while then it turns out to be true.
John Henry
Infowars goes to the Onion: MSNBC goes to Alex Jones. A fair exchange, I think.
The Onion is owned by a Hillary supporter, who supposedly bought it to prevent some of its harsh humor against her while she ran for president. Ditto for trying to get the Alex Jones "platform" although what that is without Jones is a question I haven't seen answered.
Well, auctions are supposed to be won by the highest bidder, not the politically-correct progressive-liberal Democratic Party supporter.
Maybe the bankruptcy judge should just give the Onion to the Bee.
The next lot up for sale is DNC (Did Not Confirm).
I'm not sure being outed as a bunch of sleaze bags running a leftist propaganda organ disguised as a humor site is the PR victory you think it is.
Going to rename it The Scallion. Fraudulent Onion.
Funny, I don't remember such outrage from the Althouse commentariat when Hulk Hogan bankrupted Gawker.
Jones problem is that he reports it in advance. It is usually called conspiracy theory for a while then it turns out to be true.
You mean like Sandy Hook?
Over the weekend, this clip of Alex Jones interviewing David Lynch. showed up in my Youotube recommendations. They talk about 9/11 conspiracies, among other things. It was very strange to hear these two together, and Lynch seemed to be familiar with Jones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Kx52Nkeec
To the lawyers and retired law professors here: How can these enormous defamation judgements hold up? Alex Jones hurts the feelings of Sandy Hook families? $1bn, life ruined. Rudy G. makes a false (?) accusation about two obscure women? >$300m, life ruined. DJT calls E. Jean Carroll a liar and a nutjob (quite possibly true)? >$300m, luckily, he's a billionaire. Aren't there reasonable guardrails against these monstrous penalties? Tort reform, anyone?
I'm not seeing any outrage. Do you even know how auctions operate?
Well, Bob. We know Freder is against freedom of speech. So all the above is justified.
Tort reform was a fine idea- back in the Bob Dole era. This is a weaponized judiciary, which is a much different animal. The cleanest solution is President Trump demanding an update to Marbury, by any means necessary. The likely solution is Americans taking the direct approach to dealing with corrupt judges.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-video-shows-kentucky-sheriff-pointing-gun-judge-before-alleged-fatal-shooting.amp
I'm not seeing any outrage. Do you even know how auctions operate?
Mike's complaint about the auction is bolstered by his opinion that the "judgement was excessive relative to Jones’s actions". I believe any amount of money can not compensate for Jones' behavior. That is the point I am now addressing. I will grant that my familiarity with Bankruptcy Law is sketchy at best. So I am not going to comment on the validity of the Court's decision.
@Freder: No one cared about Gawker. Publishers screw up, lawsuits happen, and some win while others lose. The issue here is corruption, incompetence, and/or interference with an auction. I actually liked the original The Onion, and never had any interest in Info Wars.
Well, if you believe that, you are an idiot. Show me one of my posts where I said I am against freedom of speech, however you define. I don't believe allowing people to tell baldfaced lies furthers the cause of free speech at all, and in fact harms it.
And you, not me, are the one voting for a man who has frequently advocated for loosening restrictions on defamation.
Yes a billion+ dollar judgement is excessive for "damages" in a case of defamation. Add to that Jones did apologize on-air. I don't understand how anyone can justify that as reasonable damages, especially for a defendant worth between one fifteenth to one fifth that much, depending on how you calculate the value of Infowars.
Gawker? You must be high. More explanation is needed to convince me that a case of an alleged "news" source purposely airing a sex tape of a public figure to intentionally defame him is comparable to a conspiracy theorist spouting conspiracy theories on-air.
Like Rusty, I'm not seeing any outrage here. Maybe YOU are just a little worked up, Freder.
Freder gives a master class on how to demonstrate your opposition to free speech while simultaneously insisting you’re all for it.
Texas judge is waiting for Musk to put in a bid. Surprised Elmo hasn’t paid off his debt and hired Jones as his spokesman. Keep the right wing conspiracies going.
The judge interpreted the law correctly. He's there to make sure that creditors recover as much of their money as possible, even though there may be other non-financial aspects which deserve consideration. That is a problem with the bankruptcy law, not this judge's interpretation of it.
Gawker? You must be high. More explanation is needed to convince me that a case of an alleged "news" source purposely airing a sex tape of a public figure to intentionally defame him is comparable to a conspiracy theorist spouting conspiracy theories on-air.
There is no doubt as to the authenticity of the Hogan tape, or for that matter, that Jones was simply making shit up about Sandy Hook. So, in your world, an outright lie is more entitled to free speech protection than a sleazy truth. Generally, the truth is a defense to accusations of defamation.
I think Althouse and you (among others) have already taught that master class.
Alex Jones will become a patron saint to journalists in 20 years' time, at this rate.
Am I the only one bothered by the way the courtroom was put to use? Is it now the norm that a defendant is forbidden by a judge to defend himself? Jones is a toad, but what was done to Jones, and the way in which it was done, should appall any US citizen who hopes to get a fair trial, ever.
Sandy Hook families?
Freder said "bolstered"! Go, Freder, go! El es en fuego!
So, in your world, an outright lie is more entitled to free speech protection than a sleazy truth.
No. They are not both "free speech" cases despite your repeated attempt to link them. Pay attention now. Jones' opinion did not cause $1B in damage, and he apologized. The plaintiffs deserved an award but I am merely stating the reasonable opinion that $1B+ is excessive. It is punitive, as the plaintiff lawyers openly said.
Gawker purposely defamed a public figure who is entitled to keep his private sex life off the public airwaves, and Hogan did suffer damage from said airing. He was awarded $140M, a slightly more reasonable amount, but perhaps still too high.
Jones is a toad, but what was done to Jones, and the way in which it was done, should appall any US citizen.
Yes Aggie. I truncated your statement but it is still 100% true. However, now you see there are Americans more appalled by what he said than how he was punished for it without the right to a vigorous defense.
Rusty is 100% correct and Freder agrees, simply by enlisting this clause in his response above: "allowing people to tell baldfaced lies." Allowing you say? Who is to determine when said speech is "allowed" and not? Was he sued for defamation or for using disallowed speech? They are not the same. America is full of liars. People tend to dismiss those that are inconvenient to admit. But no one has the wisdom or authority to decide what speech is "allowed" and not.
Freder doesn't like it that we refuse to play their game by their rules.
We don't like Gawker, so we're cheering its destruction.
Like you would do if the situation were reversed. Only it's not reversed. The left is losing on every single front.
😂😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡🤡
I am surprised Jones was not offered a cabinet position .. Minister of Truth
They’re still not funny. Sort of a parody of a parody.
The bee uses a time machine change my mind
Jones was lazy and stupid the real story wasnt 'crisis actors' but the obama administration using atrocity as public policy argument they had seen how dumblane and port arthur had cleared the way for gun confiscation
They were pretty good when they started out. They had a free paper that was distributed in the DC area, that I picked up a few times. Very funny and iconoclastic. Almost National Lampoon level. It did not last long.
The Obama administration was lazy because they continued to focus on firearm cosmetics and maintain a stubborn arrogance againt learning the facts. This continued with the Bloomberg/Biden administration, and their endless string of covert new laws disguised as "rules" followed by court losses.
This debate went off the rails back in the 1980s when Dianne Feinstein had her staff look through a big book of firearm photos to select those that should be banned. This included a single-shot shotgun because it had a thumbhole stock and looked evil. They also went after chrome plating because the manufacturer said "it resisted fingerprints." They meant staining from rust, not foresnics!
Freder. If you couldn't prevaricate you wouldn't have anything to say. I think you're objection to free speech is when you're called out on your shit.
Yes. Althouse blog is a master class in free speech.
Unlike you I don't examine reality through the lens of political ideology.
Looking through the lens of what is politically acceptable the Jan. commitee and the "Russia Gate" hoaxers should be tried for hundreds of millions of dollars.
It worked out "well" for the Onion to have had to structure a potential purchase which exposed the fact they have about $20 cash on hand!
LOL
You can always count on Left Bank for some of the dumbest possible "hot takes" for any event.
Field Marshall Freder: "Well, if you believe that, you are an idiot. Show me one of my posts where I said I am against freedom of speech, however you define."
RIght after you show me one of my posts where YOU claimed I called for violence against political enemies. Which should have been easy since YOU claimed I often posted violent threats against political enemies.
Remember that one tiger?
Freder--the post that shows you are against freedom of speech is your own: I don't believe allowing people to tell baldfaced lies furthers the cause of free speech at all, and in fact harms it.
The guys who put together the Bill of Rights disagreed. Nobody in America should be "allowed" to say anything, because nobody has the right to prevent them from doing so.
Post a Comment