SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
sandy hook
Media Justice as The Onion Buys Infowars From 'Hateful' (and Bankrupt) Alex Jones
"This is going to be our answer to this no-guardrails world where there are no gatekeepers and everything's kind of insane," said the CEO of The Onion.
Nov 14, 2024
In what one journalist called an "insane twist" to the long saga of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' use of his online platform to spread rampant disinformation, satirical newspaper The Onion on Thursday announced it had won an auction to buy Infowars, Jones' bankrupt publication.
Jones declared bankruptcy in 2022 after the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting won nearly $1.5 billion in damages in lawsuits they filed over Jones' repeated claims on his show that the shooting had been a hoax.
Jones claimed the families and victims—20 first graders and six educators—were crisis actors, inciting his supporters to threaten the grieving families.
The auction included everything from Jones' desk and production studio to his diet supplement line, and the Sandy Hook families supported The Onion's effort to take control of Infowars, which the company said would be relaunched as a parody of itself.
"The Onion's goal with the acquisition is to end Infowars' relentless barrage of disinformation for the sake of selling supplements and replace it with The Onion's relentless barrage of humor for good," said the company in a press release, which did not state how much The Onion paid for Infowars.
Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion's parent company, Global Tetrahedron, toldThe New York Times that he and other leaders at the newspaper initially thought purchasing Infowars "would be a hilarious joke" to play on Jones.
"This is going to be our answer to this no-guardrails world where there are no gatekeepers and everything's kind of insane," he told the Times.
Collins, who previously reported on misinformation for NBC News, reached out to a lawyer representing Sandy Hook families and asked for their input on The Onion's auction bid. The families approved.
"By divesting Jones of Infowars' assets, the families and the team at The Onion have done a public service and will meaningfully hinder Jones' ability to do more harm."
"From Day One, these families have fought against all odds to bring true accountability to Alex Jones and his corrupt business," said Chris Mattei, the families' lawyer. "Our clients knew that true accountability meant an end to Infowars and an end to Jones' ability to spread lies, pain, and fear at scale... By divesting Jones of Infowars' assets, the families and the team at The Onion have done a public service and will meaningfully hinder Jones' ability to do more harm."
Mattei added that the families rejected Jones' offer "for allegedly more money if they would only let him stay on the air because doing so would have put other families in harm's way."
Robbie Parker, whose daughter Emilie was killed at Sandy Hook, said in a statement that the families had been "told this outcome would be nearly impossible, but we are no strangers to impossible fights."
"The world needs to see that having a platform does not mean you are above accountability—the dissolution of Alex Jones' assets and the death of Infowars is the justice we have long awaited and fought for," said Parker.
The Onion has "made an indelible mark on the public response to school shootings," said the company, pointing to its repeated printing of the headline, "'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens," which has appeared in the newspaper 37 times following school shootings.
Advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety plans to work closely with The Onion on the new Infowars parody site, which Collins said would mock "weird internet personalities" who traffic in misinformation. Everytown has signed a multiyear advertising deal with the company.
"Alex Jones has profited off the pain of Sandy Hook families," said Everytown, "and his brand of hateful disinformation has seeped into mainstream American culture.We're excited to join them as they turn the page on this toxic chapter of misinformation and begin the next chapter of InfoWars, turning it into a tool to combat disinformation and extremism through humor. Not only will this new venture staunch the flow of hurtful misinformation, but it also holds significant potential for us to reach new audiences in the fight for gun safety."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Good Guys’ with Guns Are Fucking Useless in Stopping an Armed ‘Bad Guy’
A new DOJ report on the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is laced with vivid and horrifying detail on the failings of law enforcement, themselves fearing the AR-15 weaponry in the hands of the 18-year-old shooter.
Jan 22, 2024
Remember those twisted words by Wayne LaPierre, then leader of the National Rifle Association, just days after the
mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012? Standing there proudly up on the stage, he said: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
This January LaPierre resigned from his NRA leadership position ahead of the trial on charges of corruption by the State of New York. But his words after Sandy Hook sadly live on despite repeatedly being shown to be total bullshit. Glaringly so in the review of the 2022 mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, by the Department of Justice (DOJ), released on January 18.
DOJ’s 575-page report, available in English and in Spanish, is laced with vivid and horrifying detail on the failings of law enforcement, themselves fearing the AR-15 weaponry in the hands of the 18-year-old shooter. Failings causing preventable death. Failings in providing adequate emergency medical care to wounded victims after law enforcement finally entered the classrooms. Failings as dozens of trained officers stood idly by without a leader armed to the teeth with their own AR-15-style firearms.
Here are the opening words by Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta at the news briefing where the DOJ report was officially released, remarks following those by Attorney General Merrick Garland:
The Attorney General just gave a sense of the detailed timeline we have laid out, and the cascading failures that occurred over the course of the 77 minutes between when law enforcement arrived on the scene and when they finally entered the classroom. But we also know the pain—and the failures and missteps—did not end when law enforcement finally entered the classrooms and rescued the survivors.
It continued at minute 78, when it became clear that because there was no leader, there was no plan to triage the 35 victims in classrooms 111 and 112, many of whom had been shot. Victims were moved without appropriate precautions, victims who had already passed away were taken to the hospital in ambulances, while children with bullet wounds were put on school buses without any medical attention. In the commotion, one adult victim was placed on a walkway—on the ground outside—to be attended to. She died there.
As difficult as the vivid words in the report are to ignore, I am not naive. If history is any guide, some in Congress will mightily try to discount the DOJ report, continuing to block any subsequent movement on meaningful gun-control measures. Republican lawmakers in solidly Republican states, as a detailed article in The New York Times describes, are fraid their voter base would vote them out of office if they show any hint of supporting gun-control measures. Those Republicans are waiting for the report to fade away in the news cycle to collect dust.
But then, the victims of the gun carnage in Uvalde, and those before, deserve more than letting the report die buried in dust. They deserve someone taking the debate to the naysayers in Congress and state legislatures armed with hard facts about the effectiveness of gun-control measures, framed by the realities of having none in a gun-friendly state like Texas where the brutal carnage within Robb Elementary School happened. Yes, there is an association between lack of gun regulations in a state and the occurrence of mass shootings, as I describe below.
Here are some of the arguments I would make today replying to some of the naysaying comments (bolded below) common among members of Congress downplaying any need for gun control:
Gun control does not work and won’t reduce gun violence.
Wrong. Take requiring gun licenses, as required in a minority of states today. In his review of studies, Garen Wintemute, who directs the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, writes in Health Affairs that license requirements for gun purchases “have repeatedly been associated with reduced rates of [gun] violence.” This body of research is clear.
Furthermore, Michael Siegel at Boston University and his research team found, as reported in Law and Human Behavior, that requiring one to get a permit to purchase firearms was associated with a 60% lower odds of a public mass shooting occurring in a state, controlling for state characteristics like population. Other researchers found the same thing.
Why? Because licenses to purchase firearms typically entail in-person applications and background checks involving multiple databases and, among other things, taking a gun safety course. Basically a more comprehensive examination than standalone background checks singularly taken at the point of a firearm sale.
Congress already passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) in 2022. Nothing more is needed.
Okay, but the BSCA basically only includes more funding for mental health initiatives.
Well, mental illness is the cause of most gun violence, especially mass shootings.
I agree mental troubles underlie many suicides, by firearms and otherwise. And extreme-risk or “red-flag” laws encouraged via funding in the BSCA have been shown to reduce suicides.
But research repeatedly finds that psychiatric disorders, as a comprehensive review by Rand Corporation concluded, are not the principal driver alone across the spectrum of firearm violence. And that includes not being a predictable factor in mass shootings. Sure, after a mass shooting, politicians and media search hard to find a motive and signs of mental troubles; retrospective interpretation to justify mental illness alone as cause. Retrospective interpretation, I submit, many of us not owning a gun would fail.
But an assaults weapon ban is going too far. Based only on the threatening appearance of guns, nothing more.
Maybe the 1994 ban automatically expiring in 2004 was based too much on physical appearance instead of functionality. But today, as criminologist Thomas Gabor and former ATF agent Julius Wachtel have each argued, a ban can be based on objective ballistic lethality, scoring firearms on components including caliber, muzzle velocity, firing rate, ammunition capacity, loading mechanism, and ability to add accessories that increase lethality.
Wachtel in his 2015 article in The Washington Post describes one extreme lethal ballistic feature about AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles. With “their most common calibers—7.62 and .223—these weapons discharge bullets whose extreme energy and velocity readily pierce protective garments commonly worn by police, opening cavities in flesh many times the diameter of the projectile and causing devastating wounds.” Hence, a herd of law enforcement personnel at Uvalde afraid of the weapon in the shooter’s hands milled around aimlessly for over an hour before doing anything.
And such carnage Wachtel describes was visited upon the children and teachers in Robb Elementary School on that fateful day in Uvalde, Texas.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Disarming Domestic Abusers Can Protect Us All
A federal law banning those convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a gun is an approach supported by 81 percent of those self-identifying as Republicans and 91 percent of self-identified Democrats polled.
Nov 06, 2023
Before the Lewiston, Maine spree shooting suspect began voicing plans to “shoot up” his community, there was already a red flag that he might someday commit a mass shooting. The same red flag was also present well before a Florida Republican donor shot his wife and then killed himself in a restaurant parking lot three weeks ago in Palm Beach, Florida. The same red flag had been flapping wildly for years before a shooter took the life of a Judge in Maryland four weeks ago. Each of the shooters, now all dead by suicide, had the same red flag waving from their past: domestic violence. Indeed, one of the strongest indicators that someone will commit gun violence, particularly a mass shooting, is if that person has previously committed violence against an intimate partner or family member.
As City Attorney of San Diego, I have used our state’s red flag laws, also known as gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), to disarm over a thousand truly dangerous people, a third of them domestic abusers. Having this common sense intervention available to law enforcement and the public is one of the reasons why California also has 43% fewer gun deaths than the rest of the country. Since California’s red flag law went into effect seven years ago, GVROs have been credited with disarming 58 potential mass shooters who had threatened to commit large-scale gun violence. Of the individuals who had firearms temporarily removed with a GVRO, nearly a third had an assault-type weapon such as an AR or AK-style rifle.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe.
Focusing on the use of GVROs to reduce the impacts of domestic violence is key to protecting those experiencing abuse, but it can also protect entire communities. In the U.S., domestic violence has been identified as a common factor in nearly 70 percent of fatal mass shootings, meaning the perpetrator first killed a partner or family member or had a history of domestic abuse. It was the case in Sandy Hook, it was the case in Majorie Stillman Douglas High School, it was the case in Robb Elementary, it was the case in Pulse NIghtclub, and it was the case in the most recent spree shooting in Lewiston. The use of GVROs and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) in cases of domestic violence is constitutionally consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, next month, the Supreme Court will hear United States v. Rahimi, which examines whether federal law can prohibit someone subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order from having a gun.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe. In United States v. Rahimi, Rahimi pled guilty in 2021 to possessing guns in violation of a federal law, 18 USC § 922(g)(8), that makes it a crime to possess guns when you are the subject of a qualifying domestic violence restraining order.
Rahimi had such a protective order against him because of his actions against his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has a young child, and after he was involved in six separate shooting incidents around Arlington, Texas, a search of his bedroom turned up a pistol with an extended magazine and a semi-automatic rifle. A federal grand jury indicted him for possessing the guns, but his lawyers challenged the constitutionality of prosecuting him. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately sided with Rahimi, ruling that the Second Amendment prevents the government from barring individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence protective orders from possessing a gun. The U.S. Solicitor General’s Office appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
Americans overwhelmingly want restrictions on gun ownership in domestic violence scenarios. Indeed, a federal law banning those convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a gun is an approach supported by 81 percent of those self-identifying as Republicans and 91 percent of self-identified Democrats polled. The issue the public has with red flag laws isn’t a lack of support for them but rather a lack of awareness of them. Most Americans in the 21 states with red flag laws are unaware this powerful, relatively new crisis intervention tool is available to disarm a dangerous situation. Though gun violence restraining orders had been available in California for five years, two-thirds of the Californians surveyed had no knowledge of them. As we desperately search for solutions, spreading awareness on how the public can use these laws right now may be the fastest and most effective way to address one of the most chronic patterns in our nation’s gun violence epidemic.
This op-ed was distributed by American Forum.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular