During Alex Jones’s trial, it was revealed that his lawyers had inadvertently sent all the text messages on his cell phone over a two-year period to the lawyers of the people who were suing him. The texts revealed that Jones had lied while under oath during a deposition.
I wondered at that time what other damaging information might be on those texts, given Jones’s reckless nature. It seems that he had also sent nude photos of his wife to Trump advisor Roger Stone. It is not clear if his wife had consented to this act. If she did consent, then the story ends there. If she didn’t, she can take action against Jones depending on local laws since it is a crime in some states to disclose intimate photos of someone without that person’s consent. In 2021, his wife was arrested for domestic violence against him so the relationship seems fraught.
Jones is not happy about this latest development.
And now that his lawyer in these current legal issues appeared to have accidentally released two years’ worth of information from his phone, Alex thinks she is going to use it against him with his kids.
“I know the texts and information on his phone will be evidence of all the nefarious, truly conspiratorial things said between him and his employees in their plans to keep my kids from me,” Alex told Insider, per Yahoo! News. “It’s not even about my kids, it’s about control. Controlling me.”
It is a bit rich for Jones, the baseless conspiracy king, to complain that these texts will be used to create ‘nefarious’ conspiracy theories about him.
The congressional committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021 has requested the Jones text dossier as part of its work so now all this information will be in their hands as well. Jones’s ex-wife is also suing him over custody of the three children they had together and she may seek these texts as well to support her claim that he is unstable and should not have custody.
I suspect that it is only a matter of time before these texts leak to the media. I hope they do not publish the photos of Jones’s wife. They have no value other than to satisfy prurient interests.
Mano, sometimes I wish you were more cynical.
Um, most media is there to make profit.
If it makes them profit, it has value. The only proper value: profit!
If the profit made exceeds the potential penalties at hand, it has value.
Mano, several sources (example) report the photo was shared without her consent.
John, it is clear to me that Mano meant no value to the public.
Wow, my proofreading has been very lax lately.
[I fixed it.- Mano]
Probably.
But the phrasing has the media as the subject.
The agency at hand that determines whether the hope is fulfilled.
Perhaps I excerpted too much, let’s try again.
“I hope they do not publish the photos of Jones’s wife. They have no value other than to satisfy prurient interests.”
So the expression is that the hope is that the media not publish nude photos of his wife because they have no value.
You’re saying the expression is that the hope is that the media not publish nude photos of his wife because they have no value to the public other than indulging prurience.
(Even that is arguable; it might be the case someone wants to see just what type of photo it is, to get an idea of its significance)
—
Anyway.
With big media outlets, it’s not going to be a matter of morality or of probity, but whether it fits into their profit model (and, of course, the reputation of the media outlet is a consideration quite important to its continuing profitability and influence).
John @#1,
Holms @#2 is right in that I meant that there is no public interest in publishing those photos.
Saw a video on one of the lawyer YouTube channels analyzing the whole thing, and it sounds like they didn’t just send the phone contents -- there were 300 gigabytes, likely the complete client folder at the time (they gave out the wrong Dropbox link). Plus, they found out about the mistake almost immediately (the other side first noticed their server partition filling up(!!), and notified them), yet failed to do the legal legwork to undo the release, so their attempts to do that now failed (much too late).
khms, this one?
Alex Jones Obliterated on Cross Because His Lawyer Sent His Cell Phone to Opposing Counsel — Legal Eagle — 23:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-QcbOphxYs
(if so, me too)
How is this not a crime everywhere?
Looks like it’s a crime in most US states+DC (exceptions are MA+SC, and a few territories)
https://cybercivilrights.org/nonconsensual-pornography-laws/
I found that page via the WikiP for “Revenge porn”, but as noted on that page:
It’s also a crime in places outside the US:
(the 40/50 must be an outdated edit)
All nudity is porn?
Having just watched the video linked @#7, what Jones’ lawyer sent, when informed by opposing counsel of the huge file that was downloaded, was “Please disregard” (with no other followup), when the actual correct legal phrasing should have been something like “All/some of that material is privileged” or “that material has your requested data mixed in with privileged data; please destroy it and allow us to extract your requested data from it and send you that”, within 10 days of being informed. A lawyer’s entire job revolves around using the correct phrasing that matches the laws of the jurisdiction they are in, and in the correct timeframe.
I note that there was a certain kerfuffle earlier in the trial when Jones’ lawyer Reynal gave opposing counsel Bankston the middle finger on camera (8 seconds in). Not his first mistake, nor the last, and certainly not the biggest. But Bankston may have had a certain retaliatory smugness when describing Reynal’s bigger mistakes.