Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

60% Positive

Analyzed from 4112 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#jones#alex#https#infowars#onion#amendment#case#com#said#lies

Discussion (212 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

jbombadilabout 12 hours ago
qnleighabout 9 hours ago
When this all started, the Onion released a priceless 'press statement':

"Through it all, InfoWars has shown an unswerving commitment to manufacturing anger and radicalizing the most vulnerable members of society—values that resonate deeply with all of us at Global Tetrahedron.

No price would be too high for such a cornucopia of malleable assets and minds. And yet, in a stroke of good fortune, a formidable special interest group has outwitted the hapless owner of InfoWars (a forgettable man with an already-forgotten name) and forced him to sell it at a steep bargain: less than one trillion dollars..."

Full statement here https://theonion.com/heres-why-i-decided-to-buy-infowars/

helsinkiandrewabout 7 hours ago
Brilliant plans for the future:

https://theonion.info/?p=1

> Such is the InfoWars I envision: An infinite virtual surface teeming with ads. Not just ads, but scams! Not just scams, but lies with no object, free radical misinformation, sentences and images so poorly thought out that they are unhealthy even to view for just a few seconds. The InfoWars of old was only the prototype for the hell I know we can build together: A digital platform where, every day, visitors sacrifice themselves at altars of delusion and misery, their minds fully disintegrating on contact.

quisquousabout 3 hours ago
It's like setting out to write "The King in Yellow"
apiabout 5 hours ago
Makes me think of the old Monty Python joke so funny it kills everyone skit.

Which makes me think of a thread years ago I saw on the modern equivalent: a meme so offensive (to literally everyone at once) nobody can see it without having an anger induced aneurism.

The skit would be a comical updated take on the Python skit. A hardened memelord shitposter troll is found dead in his basement, surrounded by rotted pizza boxes, empty energy drink cans, and penis enlargement pills. He had been working for years to create a meme that would simultaneously offend everyone. Something is on his screen. The person who finds it immediately flies into a rage so extreme they have an immediate brain aneurism and die. "We showed the meme to the most hardened Nazi edgelord trolls we could find on the worst Discords, Chans, and Telegram channels. Most did not survive. Some were saved by medical intervention but sustained severe brain damage..."

rescriptingabout 5 hours ago
See also, the children’s book Fluffy McWhiskers Cuteness Explosion.
guzfipabout 4 hours ago
> A digital platform where, every day, visitors sacrifice themselves at altars of delusion and misery, their minds fully disintegrating on contact.

Zuckerberg already did it.

54aJhabout 7 hours ago
The Onion is satire, so ... But Alex Jones is currently busy with Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and others to bitterly criticize Trump for the Iran war.

Trump retaliated by calling all of them "low IQ".

Given that Carlson's media company has an investment from the ubiquitous 1789 Capital (Thiel and Trump Jr.), we don't know if this is theater to keep the isolationist MAGA in the fold.

It could also be that they sacrifice Trump in order to accelerate Thiel's and Vance's technocracy.

Anyway, these influencers are still useful for their masters.

afavourabout 6 hours ago
They’re just reading polls and reacting accordingly. There’s no principle involved.
brookstabout 4 hours ago
And they aren’t being objective and rational about the polls, they are funding and cherry-picking poll data that tells them to do what they want to do.

There’s no principle, no strategy, no goal. We’re living in the political version of Cube, and just like the movie: it’s a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan.

lesuoracabout 5 hours ago
Literally no principal involved.

Tucker will take any position for money see his entire career!

Plus the guy was advocating the administration should attack Iran for attempting to assassinate trump.

oo0shinyabout 2 hours ago
For anyone curious about the events that led to this decision, I made a timeline that shows how it happened: https://alexjoneslies.com/
laweijfmvoabout 1 hour ago
just a heads up, this is pretty dark (as any mass shooting discussion would be, but particularly this one), and doesn’t include anything about the sale of infowars or the onion.
brendanfinanabout 1 hour ago
the AI-generated imagery is a non-starter for me
bassrattleabout 1 hour ago
So as he is quoted at the top "Something I talked about like 15 times, six, seven, eight years ago." This appears to be true when he said it, judging from the rest of the site's content. He offered consistent reasons for his (wrong) opinion. And when he said, "I mean, how do I get a fair trial with stuff like this?", pretty valid given the article he's referencing. Sorry, but I don't see defamation here. And the un-doctored video of the dad is ODD enough to say so on the radio. Don't take this as defending him (because I do believe he's wrong) but I find everything he said to be allowable in an open, free society. And sorry, I don't find the parents to be harmed to the tune of a $B. That all said, however, as a Tim Heidecker fan, I'm pretty happy at the outcome. Here I'll say what neither side will say: Alex is the frontman for the "cabal" (he admits his dad was in DARPA and Intelligence). His job is to say their deeds out loud (which is part of their belief system) in such a way that few people trust. I may be wrong, so sue me for a billion dollars why don't you.
rootusrootusabout 1 hour ago
> I find everything he said to be allowable in an open, free society.

Indeed, the government is not prosecuting him or trying to suppress his first amendment rights. But that doesn't mean he can say anything he wants about anyone he wants and not have any civil liability, so it seems like the system is working.

The billion dollar verdict is his own fault. He got sued by a bunch of people, and it is pretty normal to shoot for a high amount and settle for less. If he had not noped out of the entire process he would have been liable for a whole lot less (or even nothing, depending on the jury). No sympathy from me.

MeetingsBrowserabout 1 hour ago
He knowingly made up lies about the Sandy Hook parents for personal gain, and continued to do so on a regular basis for over a decade.

The case didn’t even make it to trial because he refused to turn over documents, likely because they would prove guilt.

Free speech protects your right to say your opinion, but it does not protect you from willingly causing harm to others for personal gain.

troutwine39 minutes ago
> Alex is the frontman for the "cabal" (he admits his dad was in DARPA and Intelligence).

Alex Jones is a severely damaged man and a known liar. His story about his father has changed radically over the years and within days of his telling, each time mythologizing his Dad by way of making Jones himself special, or from special people. Was Jones’ grandmother psychic? Is he himself? Does God give him downloads of information over chicken sandwiches and in the middle of the night with clock time ‘proofs’? Why did Jones receive the download to go rescue Gene Hackman and then just not do so, if the battle against the Actual Devil is so important?

> So as he is quoted at the top "Something I talked about like 15 times, six, seven, eight years ago." This appears to be true when he said it, judging from the rest of the site's content.

I haven’t reviewed the site but Jones was the head of a whole media operation that knowingly defamed these people in a bitter time, and to sell dick pills. The depositions for these things are public and you can watch them yourself. Jones himself admits in these depositions his role behind the scenes, sending Halbig on his mad journey and what not.

The $1B judgement is startling but it’s based entirely on Jones’ own statement of impact in the depositions. If you’re being sued for the profit you made from lies, maybe don’t claim the majority of humanity tunes into your show and website every day.

tootie44 minutes ago
He wasn't just expressing an opinion though. He was willfully lying. The burden for proving defamation is pretty high to avoid infringing on free speech and the burden was easily met. They proved that he not only lied, he knowingly lied and continued to knowingly lie after seeing proof his lies were materially hurting people.

Also he is not a frontman for shit. He's a narcissistic rage baiter who has never exposed any true story. Your nonsensical belief however is nowhere near the standard for defamation.

mikeoddsabout 8 hours ago
Maybe I’m out of touch, but doesn’t a $1.4b dollar settlement for this seem rather… large?
pie_flavorabout 7 hours ago
The context is that Jones blew up the court process every chance he got, setting a new record for contempt fining. The most important piece was refusing to comply with discovery (his lawyer was so bad-behaved here he ended up with a disciplinary suspension). As a result Jones received a default judgement, i.e. the plaintiffs win by default and he doesn't get to argue his case. This also means the plaintiffs get everything they were asking for. And then for some reason he didn't even enter an argument during the damages calculation phase, so the jury just went with whatever the plaintiffs said.
pippy360about 5 hours ago
Do you have a good/entertaining source for this? I'd love to read (or watch/listen) more about it
anonymarsabout 4 hours ago
I think you'll enjoy this brief clip (3 min) when it's revealed the defense lawyer accidentally provided the plaintiffs a copy of his entire phone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgxZSBfGXUM

knowledge-shareabout 3 hours ago
Knowledge Fight podcast is great. Look for their Formulaic Objection episodes to see the crazy show all of the court things were.
ChristianJacobsabout 4 hours ago
LegalEagle[0] covered this shitshow in great detail with solid commentary. Can recommend.

[0]: https://youtu.be/x-QcbOphxYs

This is when from when Jones' lawyer sent a copy of his phone to the opposition...

noirscapeabout 6 hours ago
Besides Jones and his lawyer absolutely botching his defense and basically giving up the case (and pissing off the courts as I understand it, which is a bad fucking idea and usually also leads to larger fines), the $1.4 billion is just what Jones managed to rack it up to before entering bankruptcy proceedings, which froze his debt collectors out for a bit.

Alongside the class action, Jones was iirc also facing several separate lawsuits, so what you're seeing here is multiple lost lawsuits (I think he lost 4?) adding up.

The bankruptcy also doesn't wipe the slate clean for Jones afaiu, because he specifically was found to be malicious in his behavior. Court debts aren't wiped in that situation. He's still on the hook for that.

phatfishabout 4 hours ago
Surely he just waits for the Trump pardon in 2028? Or is this something he can't be pardoned for?
cap11235about 4 hours ago
It's a civil lawsuit.
jeroenhdabout 7 hours ago
I don't think so. With how much money was made and direct attacks on individual members on the legal system, I think it's a breath of fresh air to see the rich and influential actually get punished. There's frustrating the legal system, and then there's lying under oath and executing smear campaigns against judges.

If Alex Jones wanted a smaller settlement, he could've chosen to destroy fewer lies, comply with legal orders, or simply not commit any number of his many other legal infractions.

He's desperately trying to weasel his way out of paying any of it back by doing things like moving assets around, leaving companies empty, and then declaring bankruptcy on them. His victims will probably spend the rest of their lives chasing after the compensation they're owed, but perhaps at least taking Jones' branding from him might be punishment for a man like him.

austin-cheneyabout 7 hours ago
It is absurdly large and deliberately so. First of all this was a class action suit representing 22 plaintiffs. Secondly, the number was large to punish the defendant for continuously disrespecting the count with bad repeated behavior. Third, there was no defense because the defendant failed to work with the court resulting in a summary judgment.
mcdonjeabout 8 hours ago
We're not going to have a rehash of the McDonald's coffee settlement argument here, are we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages

Schiendelmanabout 5 hours ago
She deserved way more than that for the way they tried to smear her afterward!
ziml77about 4 hours ago
Seriously, the reporting on that was so terribly biased that many people still think it was a frivolous lawsuit.
Zakabout 5 hours ago
Yes, at first. If it was a typical defamation case based on a single incident or short pattern of conduct, and if Jones behaved like a typical defendant, hiring a competent lawyer and mostly complying with court orders, the judgment would have been a few million dollars. That's not what happened.

Instead, Jones repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and attempted to delay the trial. He lied under oath, broadcast lies about the plaintiffs, and mocked the plaintiffs on his show after losing a case. He additionally broadcast his intent to continue spreading disinformation about the Sandy Hook shooting.

The long-term pattern of treating the court with contempt and clear intent to continue his illegal behavior are an extreme level of noncompliance for a defendant in a lawsuit, and they added up to an extreme penalty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_Elementa...

declan_robertsabout 2 hours ago
If he did something criminal then there's a code of law that provides a remedy to that. As far as I know that's not what happened here.

Because what he did wasn't criminal, many people wanted a maximal civil settlement in substitution.

Zakabout 1 hour ago
What he did is lose his civil lawsuits about as hard as it's possible to lose, which is easily explained by his behavior during those lawsuits.
sophaclesabout 4 hours ago
No, it doesn't seem rather large.

The man made a fortune destroying the reputations of some people, and he did so by (provably) intentionally lying about them, without their consent and with nothing paid to them. They deserve every peny of that - he stole their reputations and as with all theft, reparations are logical.

In addition he grew his following with those lies, and that following will continue to give him money. This is the interest and dividends of those lies.... it's the result of him investing the reputatoins he destroyed. Since you can't sell a following, but it's still a profit generating asset, it's fair to make Jones turn over those dividends. This ensures that he'll be turning over those dividends for a long time.

Finally there's a punative component - making sure he doesn't continue to maliciously destroy reputations for profit. It's a good idea to make sure such a pile of shit thinks twice about he tells more lies to the morons and trash that follow him.

declan_robertsabout 2 hours ago
I don't understand. Nothing stopping him from lying publicly about anybody or anything. It's not like he loses his 1st amendment card or something.

The only lesson he's learned is to hire a better legal team in the future for civil (not criminal) suits.

rootusrootus42 minutes ago
> hire a better legal team

Is there any real reason to believe that the problem was his legal teams? You know there were a lot of them, right? Aside from the singular example late in the case, it is plausible that most/all of his legal teams were quite competent.

gnabgibabout 12 hours ago
Discussion (627 points, 2 days ago, 320 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47837611
krish98saiabout 1 hour ago
Next Onion article: "InfoWars to Take over The Onion"
ElijahLynnabout 1 hour ago
Archive.is link is hanging, and NYT is paywall.

This one seems to have some info:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/04/21/the-on...

Tldr; it isn't a done deal

"The deal is not for The Onion to own Infowars, but rather to have a temporary license to the intellectual property of Infowars’ parent company, Free Speech Systems.

Papers filed in state court indicate that the deal entails The Onion paying $81,000 a month to license the Infowars.com domain and brand name, as reported by KOUW,"

https://www.kuow.org/stories/the-onion-has-agreed-to-a-new-d...

"The deal calls for The Onion to pay $81,000 a month to license the Infowars.com domain and brand name, which the receiver says will "cover carrying costs to preserve and protect the assets of the receivership estate" until an appeal filed by Jones is decided and the path is cleared for a sale."

abernard120 minutes ago
One of the things I love about this is while Alex Jones was definitely negligent in his case, this pretty much does exactly what he wanted.

One of the things I've discovered in my long career of people being wrong about everything is how strong the team sports dynamic of social politics really is. I was high school friends with a writer for the Daily Show and the thing I realized is how humor and dismissal was a way of creating social superiority and evasion of legitimate arguments.

Right now, the world is changing greatly. Lots of people are retreating into a shell of humor in order to avoid it. Mass cognitive dissonance about the nature of reality. But reality and life goes on.

treebeard901about 11 hours ago
Turning into an odd form of a take over. Basically renting it for 3 months to let Tim Heidecker do a few shows??
razorbeamz3 days ago
I hope Dan and Jordan can get the desk like they've always wanted.
treebeard901about 11 hours ago
I'm concerned they won't know what to do without Alex. Already going back over shows from 2006...
tardedmemeabout 3 hours ago
The likeness of Alex Jones was an asset of Infowars - according to Alex Jones. So Alex Jones gave up his likeness to The Onion and doesn't own it himself any more. The Onion can still have Alex Jones on the show - played by an actor - and Alex Jones will have to play a character other than himself if he ever does another show.
aworksabout 1 hour ago
That's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. I love it.
troutwineabout 4 hours ago
They’ve bounced around in time — and across InfoWars adjacent shows — for a good chunk of their run so far. I suspect they’ll be okay. Worst case the world suddenly becomes much kinder and gentler and there’s no new content being made in their wheelhouse, which seems like a win still.

Also, Jones has already set up a new media company he totally doesn’t own, no sir. He’ll move his operation when he finally loses InfoWars.

mellosoulsabout 11 hours ago
Editorialized title. It has a plan to take over that will need approval. Lots of non-paywalled coverage that would be better links, eg:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/20/the-onion-al...

See previous discussion linked in sibling as well.

Advertisement
tracker139 minutes ago
I'm not seeing it mentioned, but wasn't there some form of ponzi scheme against Jones' debt passed through the winner of the suits as part of the onion taking control that didn't actually account for the full value, or potential value or something.

I just recall seeing this story over a year ago... not sure at this point. and not having read the paywalled article.

wnevetsabout 2 hours ago
"@elonmusk please help" - Alex Jones
websapabout 3 hours ago
Once every infowars article and video is on the onion, they will instantly make sense. How long does it take to retrain foundational models and SEO to understand that those articles are absolutely trash?
solfoxabout 3 hours ago
It seems strange to me that our laws allow someone to declare personal bankruptcy to avoid paying on liabilities, while somehow maintaining interests in other companies, which results in that weird situation where another of his companies tries to buy the “bankrupt” company? (If you didn’t read the article, the only other bidder against the Onion was one of Alex’s own companies)
gafferongamesabout 5 hours ago
brb. Turning my gold into piss
gafferongamesabout 4 hours ago
The person who downvoted this clearly does not read the new InfoWars...
phendrenad2about 10 hours ago
A million dollars a year for... what? A gag that fans of infowars won't watch, and there aren't enough anti-fans to appreciate? It feels personal at this point.
ChrisRRabout 8 hours ago
> It feels personal at this point.

Of course it's personal. Alex Jones is an arsehole manufacturing outrage for profit. Being made fun of is the least of his problems

HerbManicabout 10 hours ago
Tim heidecker summarised their thinking wonderfully.

"I just thought it would be just a beautiful joke if we could take this pretty toxic, negative, destructive force of Infowars and rebrand it as this beautiful place for our creativity”.

luke727about 10 hours ago
Not to mention Alex Jones is still up and running elsewhere spreading his nonsense and hawking his merch. So it's a cute gag, I guess, and gets the Sandy Hook families some money, but doesn't really change the status quo.
aqme28about 8 hours ago
I disagree. It's a lot better than if it were bought by simply a different far-right media outlet.

This keeps it out of that ecosystem, which I think is a really good thing.

vor_about 10 hours ago
Because it's funny that The Onion will be taking over InfoWars.
MiscIdeaMaker99about 4 hours ago
And I'm _still_ laughing. LOL
jdubabout 5 hours ago
> It feels personal at this point.

Yeah, it seems hard to believe that anyone would take Alex Jones' behaviour so personally. He only suggested that the murder of 20 young children and 6 adults in a school shooting was faked for political reasons.

(Are you serious?!)

jayd16about 10 hours ago
Think of it as a million dollar ad buy.
yreadabout 7 hours ago
Or a charitable gift to Sandy Hook families
watwutabout 10 hours ago
> It feels personal at this point.

It is openly and proudly personal. It is also political, also openly.

gundamdoubleOabout 8 hours ago
It's funny
sophaclesabout 4 hours ago
It is personal. He intentionally lied about the parents of dead children. Thats as personal of an attack as it gets. Of course those parents are going to take it personally and go after the sick pile of shit who lied about them.
reedf1about 9 hours ago
> It feels personal at this point.

Fucking hell that's a funny line.

dirasiebabout 6 hours ago
i don’t understand how this is not a 1st amendment violation

can someone explain the difference between what alex jones said about sandy hook and what other people say about 9/11 being an inside job, hologram planes, fake this fake that etc

defrostabout 6 hours ago
First amendment prevents the federal government from preventing speech or punishing for speech (subject to a few exceptions).

This was not that.

This was a civil defamation case; the parents bought a case of actual material harm and harrassment of epic proportions before two seperate judges in two seperate states and both courts made the finding that Jones had indeed caused harm and harrassment .. and continued to do so over years.

mech998877about 4 hours ago
With regards to defamation law, the first amendment does result in the USA having a higher bar for prosecution than most countries- GP still has a valid question.
lateforworkabout 4 hours ago
The word "prosecution" implies criminal case brought by the government. This was a civil case brought by the victims.

If you mean higher bar for litigation, then maybe this lawsuit and its outcome shows that the bar isn't as high as you think when it comes to defamation?

fullsharkabout 4 hours ago
This seems like a good faith question to me, Jones clearly operated thinking he was protected under the first amendment, and it was not obvious to me he was going to lose his court case despite morally finding his actions repugnant.
triceratopsabout 3 hours ago
What does the first amendment have to do with slander, libel, and defamation?
sjsdaiuasgdiaabout 3 hours ago
The first amendment protects you from the government prosecuting you for the content of your speech.

The first amendment does not protect you from the results of your speech, like someone deciding they don't like you because of what you said. That person is free to dislike you for what you said and the first amendment has nothing to do with it.

Similarly, if you say things that are untrue and cause damage to others, you may be held civilly liable for the damage if they sue you and convince a jury that you lied with knowledge and intent to lie. The first amendment has nothing to do with this.

tsimionescuabout 6 hours ago
This is not a case about Sandy Hook the event - it is a defamation case by the victims of that event, that Alex Jones directly attacked.

This is the biggest difference - no one is claiming that all of the people who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 attacks were actually actors paid to pretend that they were grieving for their parents and children and friends. No one was encouraged to personally attack said victims and survivors to "expose their lies" because of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Furthermore, defamation law works very differently for claims against public personalities ("Bush did 9/11!") compared to claims against private persons ("this random child shown crying in news reports after her classmates were supposedly killed is actually pretending!"). Also, vague accusations of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy / cover up are far harder to litigate than very clear claims of massive fraud. Finally, the Sandy Hook victims were generally able to show specific damages they suffered, attacks against them by people in their community, because of Jones' actions; Dick Cheney may have been more generally hated because of claims about 9/11 conspiracies, but was not directly harasses in the same way.

someguyiguessabout 3 hours ago
That’s sounds like a first amendment violation with more steps.
tzsabout 2 hours ago
Suppose I decide to do some target shooting in my yard and set up a target. One of my shots misses and goes past the target and hits your house where it causes a surprising amount of damage and you sue me.

Would you say that if a court allows that and awards you damages it is a violation of my 2nd Amendment rights with more steps?

triceratopsabout 3 hours ago
It isn't because there's no government prosecution.
AnimalMuppetabout 3 hours ago
The first amendment has never been held to give immunity for libel or slander. So if you think it's a first amendment violation, you need to learn that the first amendment does not give blanket immunity for speech that harms others.
Rover222about 3 hours ago
Not the direct point of this thread, but this being a nytimes link... I still can't believe the way those reporters giggled their way through the Hasan Piker interview the other day. That is guy is poison, but since he align with their views, it's all just rosy and silly to promote killing people on the other side of the political spectrum.
qwertytyyuuabout 9 hours ago
No way, i can't believe it actually happened! I would have though alex would though alex and his goons would have managed to stop it
kdheiwnsabout 7 hours ago
Not sure if it even matters since Alex Jones is just going to keep doing what he's doing.

Judgements demanding he pay billions keep coming out and he just says he's not paying, and nobody has forced him to either. Even if infowars' brand changes hands, that's the extent of it.

tnelsond4about 3 hours ago
Organizations love to run controlled opposition. Just came out that the Southern poverty law center has been funding the KKK of all things.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdal/pr/federal-grand-jury-char...

fncypantsabout 1 hour ago
Are you not aware that that the credibility of the US DOJ under the present administration has been completely destroyed and you should not trust anything they say simply because they said it in a press release (perhaps especially because they said it in a press release)? Federal judges have repeatedly declined to give the DOJ the benefit of the doubt (called "presumption of regularity") and all but called them liars. [1]

In this case, experts are unanimous that this is a hit job by Director Patel (see his poor record here [2]) who had a political vendetta against this civil rights organization. SPLC's actions were all related to investigations to EXPOSE the KKK using undercover informants. They were paying investigators, not the organization. They were absolutely in no way "funding the KKK."

“SPLC is a leading authority on organized hate groups and undertakes the complex and often dangerous work of investigating and exposing these networks. Its outstanding record of tracking and addressing hate belies the misguided premise of the indictment — that SPLC was somehow supporting the very hate groups it has long helped to discredit and dismantle.

“The DOJ’s actions are wrong and part of a broader effort to intimidate organizations working to advance civil rights, strengthen our democracy, and hold bad actors accountable.[3]

[1] https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-t...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/kash-patel-fbi-...

[3] https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/statement-from-the-lawyers-...

abernard133 minutes ago
I'm definitely not aware that the credibility of the US DOJ has been destroyed.

And I question why a 501c3 charity would need "field informants" and to launder money through shell corporations. Especially to leaders of these organizations who were (1) coordinating some of these rallies and (2) due to the materially dishonest treatment of the "fine people hoax" for years.

Is the SPLC an intelligence organization? Am I missing something?

saghmabout 3 hours ago
Given some of the other claims that have come out of the "Justice" Department under this administration, I'd be curious whether there are any more reputable sources on the matter. They've already been making a habit of trying to target people Trump dislikes with flimsy prosecutions (e.g. Don Lemon for covering a protest at a church).

Even beyond that, there's pretty clear evidence of the level of professional conduct of the department being pretty low, like their lawyers literally informing a judge that they lied about the basis of their arguments[0], cases getting dismissed because they were filed by someone who wasn't even a valid US Attorney[1] but who continued to claim to be one for another couple of months until a court order threatening her with contempt charges (by a Trump-appointed judge, for what it's worth)[2], and in one instance a lawyer literally requesting that a judge hold them in contempt because their job "sucks"[3].

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-court-arrests-ice-j... [1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/24/halligan-dismissed-... [2]: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-orders-lindsey-halligan... [3]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/attorney...

rexpopabout 2 hours ago
It has just been alleged.
saltyoldmanabout 2 hours ago
There is very compelling evidence. Bank transfers.
wredcollabout 1 hour ago
Paying someone to report on what the kkk is doing is not, in fact, the same thing as funding the kkk.

What a weird lie to parrot.

guywithahatabout 2 hours ago
It's sort of tragic the onion takeover came on the heels of him being right about SPLC. There's something morally questionable about the largest civil fine in history being against a guy who accused a shooting of being a false flag and then apologized a few weeks later when better information came to light. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been sued, but rather it feels like the wrong amount for how apologetic he was even long before the lawsuit, especially given his show has a strong comedy aspect to it.
ijkabout 1 hour ago
I don't see anywhere he was apologetic enough to fix any of the damages that he caused, and plenty of places where he was documented as doubling down on lies he knew were lies at the time.

The man was making money off of lying about dead children. Where's the comedy in that?

wredcollabout 1 hour ago
> against a guy who accused a shooting of being a false flag and then apologized a few weeks later when better information came

This is a blatant lie.

seattle_spring44 minutes ago
Alex Jones makes dozens of patently false claims per episode. Yet every once in a while, he will accidentally say something that can be associated with reality. People will latch onto those once-in-ten-thousand statements and say, "look! Alex Jones was actually right about x all along," while completely ignoring the veritable sea of misinformation he spouted along the way.
Advertisement