Re:Judge Refuses to Allow Sale of Infowars to The Onion
by akira2501 on Wednesday December 11, 2024 @05:22PM
(#42393698)
> Those are facts, right?
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.
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.