This article in The Current doesn't say this. It says, quote, Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, have been prohibited from defending themselves under the default, but can try to minimize what they have to pay in compensatory and punitive damages. Alex can't defend himself under the default. That's an important distinction, because that ship has sailed. He had every opportunity to defend himself when that was appropriate, but he didn't, and he was so abusive of the process that he was defaulted. He can't now take this damages hearing as an opportunity to try and undo the default, or to carry out the case as if he hadn't been defaulted. He fucked himself over, and this is a consequence of that. He has every ability to defend himself in the context of this damages hearing which is the second part of the sentence in that current article that he's ignoring. He can try to minimize the damages. That's the damages hearing equivalent of defending himself.