A U.S. bankruptcy court trustee is planning to shut down Alex Jones’ Infowars media platform and liquidate its assets to help pay the $1.5 billion in lawsuit judgments Jones owes for repeatedly calling the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting a hoax.

In an “emergency” motion filed Sunday in Houston, trustee Christopher Murray indicated publicly for the first time that he intends to “conduct an orderly wind-down” of the operations of Infowars’ parent company and “liquidate its inventory.” Murray, who was appointed by a federal judge to oversee the assets in Jones’ personal bankruptcy case, did not give a timetable for the liquidation.

Jones has been saying on his web and radio shows that he expects Infowars to operate for a few more months before it is shut down because of the bankruptcy. But he has vowed to continue his bombastic broadcasts in some other fashion, possibly on social media. He also had talked about someone else buying the company and allowing him to continue his shows as an employee.

  • Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.comOPMEnglish
    1·
    5 days ago

    So your clear on this going forward; the first amendment protects a persons speech from repercussions from the government. That’s it. Not from aggrieved parties. Not even from businesses deciding to sue. It means your city or state can’t censor you - the rest of society ABSOLUTELY can tho.

    I actually think the first amendment is to protect you from any kind of oppression by anyone, including your employer.

    The government should ensure that your boss can’t fire you because you have the wrong opinion or some such.

    I also do not understand the idea that he has the wrong opinion, you can sue him…!

    To clarify, though: in matters of private affairs, it can constitute harassment or slander to knowingly spread lies that impact someone’s reputation with the design to curtail their ability to exercise their rights or do business.

    But a different standard is applied to things in the public sphere - the wild speculation of people during a criminal trial makes sense, and any kind of discourse on publicly relevant events makes sense…

    While it would be highly inappropriate to claim you are practicing free speech and serving the public interests by spreading malicious lies you know to be untrue about the woman down the street and her affair with the mailman.