---
title: "The Alex Jones verdict and two identical appeals — Sami Miettinen on Weekly Wiseguys"
titleOriginal: "Viisastelu – Alex Jonesin tuomio | PayPalin sekoilu | Jengirikollisuus Suomessa"
description: "Sami Miettinen, Tere Sammallahti and MP Onni Rostila on Ivan Puopolo's Weekly Wiseguys, 14 October 2022: a free-speech panel defending the basis of the Alex Jones verdict while disputing its size, the precise difference between US and Finnish defamation thresholds, PayPal's retracted misinformation penalty, and two word-for-word identical appeals that produced opposite decisions at the same employment office."
format: "podcast"
show: "Viikon viisasteluklubi"
episode: "Viisastelu 14.10.2022"
hosts: ["Ivan Puopolo"]
date: 2022-10-14
duration: "57:29"
language: "fi"
original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu4a6BrjD-U
canonical: https://www.neuvottelija.com/media/viisastelu-alex-jones-verdict-paypal-and-gang-crime/
---

# The Alex Jones verdict and two identical appeals — Sami Miettinen on Weekly Wiseguys

Sami Miettinen joined **Viikon viisastelu** — Ivan Puopolo's weekly political panel, known
in English here as *Weekly Wiseguys* — on 14 October 2022, in a four-handed special
alongside **Tere Sammallahti** and MP **Onni Rostila**. Puopolo leaves partway through and
Sami takes over the hosting, which is announced on air.

The centrepiece is a free-speech programme declining to treat the Alex Jones damages verdict
as a free-speech violation. The panel states plainly that the conduct was morally repugnant,
that defamation law is necessary, and that the argument is about the size of the award and
the motives behind it rather than its basis. It then draws the distinction that makes the
episode worth keeping: in the United States defamation requires a false statement *and*
measurable objective harm, whereas in Finland the offence is one of abstract endangerment —
it is enough that a statement is *capable* of causing harm, with no need to prove that it
did. That single difference accounts for much of why the two countries' speech debates look
so unalike.

Two concrete cases close the episode, both about the breadth of official discretion. A
library refused space to a civic association because a participant had been acquitted but
described by a court as having acted reprehensibly. And two word-for-word identical
unemployment appeals, filed by a married couple in identical circumstances, were handled by
two different officials and produced opposite decisions — after which the office's
explanation shifted from "everyone is treated the same" to "each case involves discretion."

Along the way the panel corrects its own numbers twice on a survey it is citing from memory,
concedes that Finland does have a debt-adjustment procedure after arguing the American
system treats failed entrepreneurs better, and notes that the visibility of an argument in
the press is dictated by the speaker's position rather than by the argument — offered as an
explanation rather than as a complaint.

## Chapters

- **00:00** — A special edition, the line-up, and a change of host
- **00:47** — The free-speech corner: PayPal's $2,500 contractual penalty
- **02:33** — What liquidated damages means in practice
- **04:16** — Delaware forces the Twitter deal through
- **05:02** — Does PayPal's position survive overreach
- **05:58** — An EVA survey — and two corrections mid-conversation
- **07:32** — Perspective distortion: the university, the media and source selection
- **09:20** — When position decides visibility, not argument
- **10:57** — The Alex Jones verdict: what the panel agrees about
- **12:31** — The threshold for defamation in the US and in Finland
- **14:16** — A billion dollars — what the number rests on
- **15:09** — Compensatory, punitive, and the Finnish bar on enrichment
- **16:41** — Why Jones lost: a lawyer's error and lying in court
- **17:26** — Was there a political motive behind the verdict
- **18:23** — Beckham, Depp and measurable harm
- **22:17** — Misinformation as a concept: who defines a falsehood
- **23:05** — Personal bankruptcy versus permanent debt bondage
- **24:38** — Sam Harris, "Jihad Rehab" and an inconsistency
- **27:09** — Trump's court cases and a politicised prosecutor
- **29:35** — When speech cannot be limited by law, it is limited otherwise
- **30:25** — Alcohol distance selling, customs and the regulator
- **32:15** — What to assume about an official — the same principle again
- **33:00** — Officials interpreting EU rules more strictly than the EU does
- **34:34** — A library refusal, and "almost a crime"
- **37:03** — Two identical appeals, two different decisions
- **41:03** — Fear of freedom, and some litmus tests
- **44:12** — Gang crime: what cannot be said out loud
- **46:38** — Doublethink, Lysenko, and ideology ahead of facts
- **49:02** — Parallel communities and rethinking sentencing
- **50:36** — A cartoonist's police interview, and proving intent
- **52:10** — Why Finland fools itself for decades
- **55:22** — Closing

**The recording lives on Ivan Puopolo’s own channel and he owns it.** This page is a record of the appearance and a pointer to the original, not a copy of it. The chapter marks above are derived from the recording itself; the episode carries no published chapter list of its own.

A fuller write-up is on Neuvottelija AI, [in English](https://www.neuvottelija.com/ai/viisastelu-alex-jonesin-tuomio-paypal-ja-jengirikollisuus/) and [in Finnish](https://www.neuvottelija.fi/poliittinen-satiiri/viisastelu-alex-jonesin-tuomio-paypal-ja-jengirikollisuus/).

Original recording (Viikon viisasteluklubi): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu4a6BrjD-U

---

Cite as: Sami Miettinen, guest on Viikon viisasteluklubi Viisastelu 14.10.2022 — The Alex Jones verdict and two identical appeals — Sami Miettinen on Weekly Wiseguys, 2022-10-14, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu4a6BrjD-U. Record: https://www.neuvottelija.com/media/viisastelu-alex-jones-verdict-paypal-and-gang-crime/.