PC Principal IV: Alex Jones' Goat Rodeo with a side of Starbucks Race Baiting

[6souls]

Alex Jones is being Sued for Defamation by the Parents of Sandy Hook, Seeking $1m in Damages

Mr Jones has long claimed on his radio show and InfoWars website that the Sandy Hook Elementary school attack was "completely fake" and a "giant hoax".

Twenty children - all under the age of seven - and six adults were killed.

Mr Jones has implied that the parents are actors seeking to undermine laws allowing private gun ownership.

Mr Jones, in an April 2017 video titled "Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed", insinuated that Ms De La Rosa was an actor.

A separate lawsuit filed in Travis County by Neil Heslin, father of slain student Jesse Lewis, alleges that Mr Jones accused him of lying about holding his son's body with a bullet hole in his head, according to the complaint.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43799449

Starbucks to Close All Locations to begin Race Training Education

Coffee chain Starbucks is to close more than 8,000 company-owned branches in the US for an afternoon next month to carry out "racial bias" training.

The aim is to prevent discrimination in Starbucks stores.

Starbucks' boss said he had been "learning what we did wrong and the steps we need to take to fix it".

"While this is not limited to Starbucks, we're committed to being a part of the solution. Closing our stores for racial bias training is just one step in a journey that requires dedication from every level of our company and partnerships in our local communities," he said.

The training will "address implicit bias, promote conscious inclusion, prevent discrimination and ensure everyone inside a Starbucks store feels safe and welcome", the company said in a statement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43803756
https://news.starbucks.com/press-rel...ucation-may-29

[archibaldcrane]

goddamnit i had a whole fucking screed about the Starbucks thing typed out and the thread got locked and I lost my post

[archibaldcrane]

Super shorter version

Will Starbucks allow people who are not paying customers use their bathrooms or sit at their tables now?

If not, what will they do with said people? Can they be told to "move along" if they aren't going to buy anything? What do you do if they decline to move along?

[6souls]

goddamnit i had a whole fucking screed about the Starbucks thing typed out and the thread got locked and I lost my post

[Dimmauk]

Kudos to Starbucks. One store fucked up, and it shouldn't have painted the entire company as racist. The training is a little excessive, but has to be done.

[Gredival]

So is Alex Jones going to use the same defense as his custody trial where he says he's obviously a parody that shouldn't be taken seriously?

[dasva]

Will Starbucks allow people who are not paying customers use their bathrooms or sit at their tables now?

If not, what will they do with said people? Can they be told to "move along" if they aren't going to buy anything? What do you do if they decline to move along?

Plenty of places do this already. Often having locks in poorer areas though they often just make assumptions about whether you are a customer a lot of the time. Yes often tell people to leave but they obviously can't do anything without getting into a boatload of trouble themselves and have to call cops. You can't choose what customers to serve but you can choose not to let non customers/employees on premises. Of course it really depends on the loitering laws in your city/state

[Dimmauk]

White people McDonald's don't have locks on the doors. Black and Brown people McDonald's do.

[Anoat]

White people McDonald's don't have locks on the doors. Black and Brown people McDonald's do.

I don't think I've ever seen a McDonald's bathroom door locked and I've been in some hoodtastic McD's before. I live in the South though.

[jacobs67]

I've sat in Starbucks before just sipping water and using the bathroom and mooching their WiFi for hours a million times and I've never been asked to leave. But then again I'm hot
#BeautyPrivilege

[dasva]

White people McDonald's don't have locks on the doors. Black and Brown people McDonald's do.

They have segregated Mcdonalds!?!

[Dimmauk]

I don't think I've ever seen a McDonald's bathroom door locked and I've been in some hoodtastic McD's before. I live in the South though.

I was just at a McDonald's where you had to ask the manager to open the restroom door. It was in a poor side of town.

[dasva]

Comic Rebel Wilson fights appeal of her $3.6M defamation win

Oh boy better not say someone lied even if it might be true about the wrong person lol

[Surealistic]

Comic Rebel Wilson fights appeal of her $3.6M defamation win

Oh boy better not say someone lied even if it might be true about the wrong person lol

or, if you turn down a $200,000 settlement, you dont get to cry about the $4.2m decision when you lose the case you thought was a slam dunk

[dasva]

I mean sure but goddamn son that's a lot of money for calling someone a liar lol. Especially when the person even admitted to some of it.

[Salodin]

That wasn't the point though. They made up shit about her, things that ended up costing her at least a couple movie deals. This wasn't punitive in the least, there are demonstratable losses she can claim because of their story and it's lies. Maybe they shouldn't print lies and claim they're true, and if they do then maybe they should settle like every other media company instead of going to court where you gotta defend yourself and say "nah I didn't know these were lies even though I had no evidence that they were true".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[dasva]

That wasn't the point though. They made up shit about her, things that ended up costing her at least a couple movie deals. This wasn't punitive in the least, there are demonstratable losses she can claim because of their story and it's lies. Maybe they shouldn't print lies and claim they're true, and if they do then maybe they should settle like every other media company instead of going to court where you gotta defend yourself and say "nah I didn't know these were lies even though I had no evidence that they were true".

Full stop. That didn't happen.

First off they had a source. Yes it was one that wished to remain anonymous and likely not the most reliable. Random unreliable sources info getting printed happens all the time sometimes even in reputable sources though they tend to at least do some investigation. Some of it actually even being true and the rest well isn't really mentioned I'd really like to see an investigation on things. Part of why they came down on them is basically the judge saying they used this as clickbait. And to an extent says this is particularly aggrievous compared to older cases (which had a much lower payout cap btw) because the internet exists and people spread shit. All of which is a kind of scary line to start taking. Shit look at all the shit talked about Trump... even if 99% of it is true imagine making him richer off that 1%

Second there was no proof of any offered that any loss of roles only her claim. There were no losses actually demonstrated.

Third even if we forget the first 2 parts only 3.9 mil was for the roles. $650,000 was for general damages. And the cap for Defamation over there is generally $389,500 but the judge found a way to say that doesn't apply basically saying needed more to restore faith in her being an honest person or something

While yeah big companies should generally settle can definitely see why they didn't since this whole thing was way beyond the norm. I mean they had to go into this thinking at most they would lose was double the settlement amount

[Yuri-G]

Maybe don't talk shit about famous people on a news outlet if you can't prove what you're saying is true.

[Salodin]

Full stop. That didn't happen.

First off they had a source. Yes it was one that wished to remain anonymous and likely not the most reliable. Random unreliable sources info getting printed happens all the time sometimes even in reputable sources though they tend to at least do some investigation. Some of it actually even being true and the rest well isn't really mentioned I'd really like to see an investigation on things. Part of why they came down on them is basically the judge saying they used this as clickbait. And to an extent says this is particularly aggrievous compared to older cases (which had a much lower payout cap btw) because the internet exists and people spread shit. All of which is a kind of scary line to start taking. Shit look at all the shit talked about Trump... even if 99% of it is true imagine making him richer off that 1%

Second there was no proof of any offered that any loss of roles only her claim. There were no losses actually demonstrated.

Third even if we forget the first 2 parts only 3.9 mil was for the roles. $650,000 was for general damages. And the cap for Defamation over there is generally $389,500 but the judge found a way to say that doesn't apply basically saying needed more to restore faith in her being an honest person or something

While yeah big companies should generally settle can definitely see why they didn't since this whole thing was way beyond the norm. I mean they had to go into this thinking at most they would lose was double the settlement amount

So what you're saying is they had no actual proof of the character defaming claims that they had. They decided to run with it anyways even though no investigation was done, or if they did one it came back with findings that did not sell clicks. And then instead of settling like a sane adult would do in order to not waste their time, the plantiffs time, or the courts, they decided to try and defend their lies in court. Lies of which you say they even admitted to.

You'll have to cite where the judge/court rejected the plaintiffs claim that her career, aka a couple movie roles, was not injured by the story. One of the roles was an animated movie right? You can't fathom her losing a role in a children's movie if some scandalous shit was going down in the news? I haven't looked into this one specifically, but considering a judge ruled in her favor I'm inclined to believe them over you, sorry lol.

And lastly, I'm not worried about the sum asked to be paid. We're used to hand waving lies on the internet with our callous skin and all, but this isn't the first time a media company of some sorts has had to pay for their lazy editors or downright lies that they print. Not every media comoany is successfully getting sued for lies or misinformation, only the ones that peddle lies and misinformation as a business plan are afaik.

Honestly, if this was a schoolyard no one would be worried that the people talking shit got what was coming to them. This is a media company trying to pretend to be a journalist company peddling news, trying to run their shit like a social media company. If they had some scrupples and didn't publish shit click bait they wouldn't be in this situation. I bet you they think that story they wrote on her wasnt worth the clicks they got, and now maybe more companies will think twice before peddling shit "news". If the judge didn't negatively encourage this behavior then why would it ever change? Lol

Also, they should be more careful with their anonymous sources. This one cost them millions. Maybe they'll corroborate their story next time like I see all these American papers do when they quote sources from the WH.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

Ahahahahahahaha this fucking moron