Section Branding
Header Content
Was the Infowars auction fair? A judge wants to hear arguments in December
Primary Content
A federal bankruptcy judge has called for a hearing next month on whether to approve the sale of Alex Jones' Infowars company to the satirical news site The Onion. Judge Christopher Lopez said Monday that he will hear from all parties and decide whether the auction process was fair.
Jones and the losing bidder says the process was "rigged" against them, and they are accusing the U.S. trustee overseeing the recent auction of improper collusion with the winning bidders: The Onion and a group of Sandy Hook families who forced Jones into bankruptcy. The families won nearly $1.5 billion after suing Jones for spreading lies that the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., was a hoax meant to drum up support for gun control. Jones' followers harassed and threatened the grieving families for years.
The families, The Onion and the trustee adamantly deny any wrongdoing in the auction process. But Jones is hoping the judge will reject the sale, paving the way for the back-up bidder — the "good guys," as Jones calls them — to buy Infowars, and its parent company, Free Speech Systems. In that scenario, Jones could be allowed to stay in his current studio as an employee of the new owners and to continue his show under the same name. If The Onion wins, Jones would have to rebuild his audience from a new space and under a new name, a prospect he says he's prepared for if necessary.
Battle between two bidders
In the end, the battle for Jones' company came down to two bidders. A firm linked to Jones' online business, First United American Companies, bid $3.5 million in cash for Infowars. The Onion bid half that amount in cash, $1.75 million, but added a sweetener — some of the Sandy Hook families gave up some of the money they would have received, so that other claimants would get more. The trustee says that arrangement made The Onion bid the best.
A core issue in the sale is whether the trustee exceeded his discretion to design the auction and to choose the winner. FUAC has complained that the trustee didn't hold a live auction with the chance for parties to outbid each other. But the trustee has countered that his single-round process is also allowed under the rules, and that it "worked exactly as intended," prompting both bidders to make higher offers.
The losing bidder is also challenging the families' sweetener, calling it "monopoly money." FUAC says Jones could still win his appeal in those defamation cases and the families' takeaway could be nil. But the trustee says courts "routinely" recognize the value of even disputed judgments.
In court papers filed before the hearing, the trustee, Christopher Murray, called Jones "desperate to stop a sale he does not like" and accused him of a "vicious smear campaign lobbing patently false accusations."
After next month's hearing, Judge Lopez would have the option to approve the sale, to order a new one or to flip the outcome and award Jones' media company to FUAC.
But University of Florida Levin College of Law professor Christopher Hampson sees that third option as unlikely. He says the deal from The Onion and the families may be somewhat unusual, but it's not necessarily beyond the trustee's discretion. According to a court order, Murray has the authority to use his "reasonable business judgement" to set, modify and add "procedural rules that are reasonably necessary or advisable" and to select the "highest or otherwise best bid."
"That is expansive language," Hampson says. "There are lots of totally fair ways of running an auction [and] it's not clear to me that the process was problematic in any way."
At Monday's hearing, the judge declined to rule on Jones' emergency request for a restraining order against The Onion, who Jones complained was prematurely declaring itself Infowars' new owner before the sale was approved. Jones also complained he and his staff had been prematurely forced out of his studio.
But Jones was back behind his Infowars desk within a day, so the judge denied Jones' request for a restraining order, saying, "I don't think there's anything for me to restrain."
As for Jones' allegations that The Onion was wrongly proclaiming victory, the judge was not swayed.
"It's got to cut both ways," Lopez told Jones' lawyer. "I'm not telling Mr. Jones what to say either […] I don't want to infringe on anyone's First Amendment rights."
The Onion did not respond to a request for comment after the hearing. But Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion's parent company, Global Tetrahedron, has been gloating about getting Infowars since shortly after the auction. Collins told NPR he thought it would be "the funniest joke possible" to take over Infowars, which he described as "hucksters" who are "selling garbage" and convincing people "to be afraid of everything."
"They got a free pass for too long," Collins said, "and we're coming right for them."
It's 'what satire does best'
The Onion says its brand of satire may be the best tool to take on Infowars' brand of conspiracy mongering, especially around gun violence. The Onion has reposted the same satirical headline after dozens of mass shootings dating back to 2014: 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" lampoons the headline that first ran after a deadly shooting in Isla Vista, Calif.
"That's what satire does best," says Jason Roeder, who wrote that headline and now works as a freelancer for The Onion. "[It] illuminates what is grotesquely irrational, and obscenely ridiculous."
Satire doesn't necessarily mean funny, Roeder says, noting there's actually "not a funny word" in any of the stories posted along with his 'No Way To Prevent This' headline.
It's just a "grim repetition as an indictment of who we are as a culture," Roeder says, that might reach some people who conventional news sources have not. The aim, he says, is to wake people up who've become resigned to gun violence in America, and "have seemingly signed off on it as part of its culture."
But Jones is determined to ensure that The Onion does not have the last laugh. He continues to rant on his show about the "deep state" trying to shut down his business and silence him.
He also accuses Democratic "front groups" of "trying to steal [his] identity" by selling one of his X accounts, which has more than 3 million followers. Jones argues it's a personal account, not part of his business, and therefore cannot be sold. He celebrated on X Monday that lawyers for Elon Musk officially objected to the forced sale of his accounts, saying they are the "exclusive property" of X, and cannot be sold as part of his estate.
That, too, has yet to be decided by the judge.
Bottom Content
