> This is dangerously close to making the penalty the loss of his first amendment rights.
They'll never be able to stop him from creating "The Alex Jones Off the Deep End Show" where he thrills listeners with zany tales of conspiracies that can only be held at bay with these brand new supplements. He just has to forfeit Infowars and its assets.
> They'll never be able to stop him from creating "The Alex Jones Off the Deep End Show" where he thrills listeners with zany tales of conspiracies that can only be held at bay with these brand new supplements
So you're unable to think about this problem without putting your bias at the forefront?
> He just has to forfeit Infowars and its assets.
Actually, with this ruling, he does not. Roger Stone's group will get a legitimate change to purchase it to keep it under Jones' control. If you think that's a miscarriage of justice, as the OP does, can you explain why?
Why is forfeiture of his platform a necessity in your eyes?
> So you're unable to think about this problem without putting your bias at the forefront?
He is a conspiracy theorist, this is his thing. And he sells supplements on his show. Those are facts, right? I suppose my bias only shows with the characterization of "zany tales"? But IMO it's not even a stretch, this guy seems really quite off base.
> Why is forfeiture of his platform a necessity in your eyes?
I mean, it's not. But he has assets and liabilities, right? Right now his liabilities vastly outweigh his assets. So it's unjust to deny his creditors access to his assets. He can keep his house and a car, I guess. Or whatever is normal/typical assets to be preserved in bankruptcy. But his interest in Infowars is not an inalienable right.
He has free speech, freer speech than any generation before him. He could broadcast a new show from his personal cell phone and it would be dynamite production value compared to AM radio shows that have been used in decades past (and still used today). He can even resume saying things about Sandy Hook victims that he walked back during the trial. He just risks new liabilities if he does that.
Does his typical content or advertisers have a bearing on the particulars of this case?
> But his interest in Infowars is not an inalienable right.
Neither is The Onion's or the victims. Whoever has the most cash gets the asset. So, if his partners have the most cash, why do you or the OP have a problem with him retaining the asset?
The asset is changing hands due to bankruptcy not due to any specific ruling. You seem to believe that there is a direct ruling which dictates he must sell the asset. You see the problem with this thinking?
> freer speech than any generation before him.
Does that have any bearing on the case? Are you saying what is happening is okay because he enjoys his rights more than previous generations? Where do you get this legal theory from?
> He can even resume saying things about Sandy Hook victims
You again show that your thinking is dominated by bias and you are unwilling or unable to detach from it.
They'll never be able to stop him from creating "The Alex Jones Off the Deep End Show" where he thrills listeners with zany tales of conspiracies that can only be held at bay with these brand new supplements. He just has to forfeit Infowars and its assets.