5 ms·

Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? I don’t know all the rules around when speech isn’t prot

Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? I don’t know all the rules around when speech isn’t protected but the article doesn’t really cover why this wasn’t. Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?

ajaimk 4y ago
The plaintiffs lawyer said is best, "Speech is free, but lies you have to pay for."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hunterb123 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BooneJS 4y ago
Defamation, Slander, etc. None are protected. Free speech protects you from the Government, not your fellow citizens.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  The court is part of the government.
  - function_seven 4y ago
    The court oversaw the case. It did not bring it. Example: I specifically prohibit peanuts in my kitchen, because I serve meals to allergic children. You sneak peanuts into the kitchen. I sue you and win. Does this mean "Peanuts are illegal"? No. I have a civil action and we have a system of civil courts wherein these grievances can be aired and adjudicated.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    Leaving aside the absurd logic, it doesn’t matter. Slanderous speech is not protected speech…the government is allowed and expected to facilitate consequences.
  - decebalus1 4y ago
    That's a false equivalence. The court mediates the case between private parties. That's what civil court does. This is not a trial between 'the people' (the State) and Alex Jones. It's between some of the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre and Alex Jones. Jones is free to say whatever and the state cannot make laws about what he can say or cannot say, but that doesn't stop private individuals from suing him and winning.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      to be fair, whilst it's true the distinction is hugely important to US concepts of free speech, it's also true it's not necessarily as material as it might seem. The state is composed of people, who have the right to sue their critics for alleged slander/libel (quite a lot of political speech involves making adversarial claims about people or corporate entities which could theoretically be ruled as malicious and factually untrue). Politicians suing other politicians or critics is unusual rather than not permitted in the US, but in other places like Singapore tort law is used consistently against prominent critics. It's possible for civil courts to be consistently biased in favour of politically-connected individuals and companies and for the consequences for criticism of them to be financially ruinous, and possible for actual criminal speech offences in other jurisdictions to have [lower] purely financial penalties, stronger presumptions in favour of the defendant and more scrupulously independent judicial processes.
- kevinpet 4y ago
  This is an incorrect analysis of where the conclusion comes from. Allowing the use of the courts to prohibit slander is a government action. Slander and libel are long standing exceptions to free speech. "Fighting words", espionage, contempt of court, or insubordination in the military are other exceptions that come to mind. The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument that anyone is free to choose not to associate with you, or consider you a jerk, for something you said.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument "Congress shall make no law..." We've extrapolated a bunch from there, but the founding words are pretty clear.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dougSF70 4y ago
I guess free speech that is proveably false is what is at stake here. Conspiracy theories are OK provided they are cannot be proven to be untrue.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? No, while there are Constitutional limits (especially when the injured party is a public figure, see NY Times v. Sullivan), deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech. > Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event? No, it just reinforces the existing precedent that people who deliberately or recklessly spread falsehoods about people can be sued by those injured by the falsehoods. Defamation isn't a new thing in law. And this isn't the first time that has bitten Alex Jones.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech IANAL (I am not a lawyer; and IANAAJA—I am not an Alex Jones apologist), but I think deserves qualification. My understanding is that it’s not the falsehood which is restricted, it’s the damage caused by purveying the falsehood. If I’m not mistaken I can claim (anywhere under US jurisdiction, unless under oath or otherwise legally sworn to be truthful) that I have a cat (I don’t) without any legal risk to 1A protection whatsoever. Granted, that could raise other eyebrows which might gain legal force if I persisted, presumably around competency to care for myself (or my dog, who I assure you does exist).
  - scott_s 4y ago
    Publishing falsehoods about other people is not always protected speech. (Whether the other people are considered “public” or “private” changes the standards for deciding if the speech is protected.)
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    While you’re right, that damages are an important factor, it’s worth noting that these don’t have to be strictly limited to direct monetary damages. For example, Jones was defaulted on intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury’s compensatory damages were heavily weighted to IIED. So the damages can be abstract in some sense. But yes, generally defamation requires both material false statements of fact, and damages to a specific party.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RadixDLT 4y ago
jones is a radio host thats why
jcranmer 4y ago
Defamation is not protected under the first amendment. Jones might have had a credible defense against the allegations of defamation (I haven't bothered to read the original complaint or any of the motions)--and defamation is notoriously hard for the plaintiffs to win in the US--but he was so uncooperative during discovery that he had a default judgement entered against him, meaning the only thing the jury had to decide was how much damages to award.
enragedcacti 4y ago
It doesn't mean anything for protected free speech because: 1) as other commenters have pointed out, this is for defamation against the parents for saying they were actors, sending "reporters" to harass them, etc. 2) He lost the defamation case by default for repeatedly refusing to comply with the court pre-trial. This trial was solely to determine damages. > On September 27, 2021, a district judge in Texas issued three default judgments against Jones, requiring him to pay all damages in two lawsuits. These rulings came after Jones repeatedly failed to hand over documents and evidence as ordered by the court, which the judge characterized as "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_school_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_school_s...
slibhb 4y ago
If Jones had stuck with "Sandy Hook was a false flag operation to take your guns," he would have been in the clear. The issue was his claim that the families whose children were murdered were "crisis actors".
- luxuryballs 4y ago
  It’s also interesting because he could still be 100% correct and they actually be crisis actors and the whole nine yards but that doesn’t actually matter in the outcome of the case as far as I can tell.
  - danso 4y ago
    How would Jones be found liable for defamation if his claims were “100% correct”?
    - vkou 4y ago
      By not showing up to court, and by not complying with discovery. Which is what he did, and why there are two default judgements against him. It doesn't matter how right you are, or how stupid a lawsuit against you is - if you don't show up, you aren't likely to win.
      - danso 4y ago
        Presumably he would’ve made a greater effort to show up to trial had he an airtight case for the truth.
    - luxuryballs 4y ago
      If it’s confirmed he was wrong then who would be even asking?
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    If he was 100% correct, it seems deeply unlikely that he would’ve dodged discovery the way he did.
gizmo686 4y ago
> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event? Not in any legal sense. 1) Defamation is already well established in US law; no novel legal questions came up regarding the borders of protected speach in this case. 2) Precedents are never set at trials. In order for anything from this case to become precedent, it would need to be appealed. Even then, the precedent is limited to the jurisdiction of the appellate court. For this to result in a national precedent, it would need to make its way to the Supreme Court. 3) It was already ruled that Jones is liable, this decision is entirely about the amount. The ruling on liability was not based on the merits of the case, but instead on procedural concerns. Specifically, in the words of the court: > Defendants' dicovery conduct in this case has shown flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilies of discovery under the rules. The Court finds Defendants' conduct is greatly aggravated by the consistent pattern of discovery abuse throughout the other Sandy Hook cases pending before this court. ... In sum, Defendants have been engaged in pervasis and persistent obstruction of the discovery process in general. The Court is also faced with Defendants' refusal to produce critical evidence. Defendants have shown a deliberate, contumacious, and unwarranted disregard for this Court's authority. Based on the record before it, this Court finds that Defendants' egregious discovery abuse justifies a presumption that its defenses lack merit. If there is any precedent to be set here, it would not be about the merits of the defamation case, but about the due process implications of the default judgement. Having said that, I found that to be an even bigger stretch then a hypothetical challenge on the merits, as Jones was given ample oppurtunity to participate but simply choose not to. https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-for-Default-Judgement.pdf https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Septe...
- sophacles 4y ago
  There may be due process concerns over refusing to follow the due process?
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    Jones was afforded due process. Due process requires you to participate in the _process_, which he refused to do repeatedly, for years. He can appeal, but the authority for a trial court to issue a default judgement is not new precedent but rather well established. It’s quite _rare_, but it’s happened before.
chrononaut 4y ago
> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event? Interestingly, despite whether people believe free speech applies or not, the argument whether it could be considered free speech is actually irrelevant because Alex failed to test that defense by defaulting in the original trials by failing to turn over documents. As such, I can't imagine this would set a precedent. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/alex-jones-sa...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mypalmike 4y ago
"All dog owners are part of a secret cabal that eats babies" is protected speech. "This specific dog owner, Judy Smith, is part of a secret cabal that eats babies" is libelous. ... or at potentially so. There are situations where it might not be found libelous.

ajaimk 4y ago

The plaintiffs lawyer said is best, "Speech is free, but lies you have to pay for."

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hunterb123 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BooneJS 4y ago

Defamation, Slander, etc. None are protected. Free speech protects you from the Government, not your fellow citizens.

BurningFrog 4y ago
The court is part of the government.
- function_seven 4y ago
  The court oversaw the case. It did not bring it. Example: I specifically prohibit peanuts in my kitchen, because I serve meals to allergic children. You sneak peanuts into the kitchen. I sue you and win. Does this mean "Peanuts are illegal"? No. I have a civil action and we have a system of civil courts wherein these grievances can be aired and adjudicated.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  Leaving aside the absurd logic, it doesn’t matter. Slanderous speech is not protected speech…the government is allowed and expected to facilitate consequences.
- decebalus1 4y ago
  That's a false equivalence. The court mediates the case between private parties. That's what civil court does. This is not a trial between 'the people' (the State) and Alex Jones. It's between some of the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre and Alex Jones. Jones is free to say whatever and the state cannot make laws about what he can say or cannot say, but that doesn't stop private individuals from suing him and winning.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    to be fair, whilst it's true the distinction is hugely important to US concepts of free speech, it's also true it's not necessarily as material as it might seem. The state is composed of people, who have the right to sue their critics for alleged slander/libel (quite a lot of political speech involves making adversarial claims about people or corporate entities which could theoretically be ruled as malicious and factually untrue). Politicians suing other politicians or critics is unusual rather than not permitted in the US, but in other places like Singapore tort law is used consistently against prominent critics. It's possible for civil courts to be consistently biased in favour of politically-connected individuals and companies and for the consequences for criticism of them to be financially ruinous, and possible for actual criminal speech offences in other jurisdictions to have [lower] purely financial penalties, stronger presumptions in favour of the defendant and more scrupulously independent judicial processes.
kevinpet 4y ago
This is an incorrect analysis of where the conclusion comes from. Allowing the use of the courts to prohibit slander is a government action. Slander and libel are long standing exceptions to free speech. "Fighting words", espionage, contempt of court, or insubordination in the military are other exceptions that come to mind. The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument that anyone is free to choose not to associate with you, or consider you a jerk, for something you said.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument "Congress shall make no law..." We've extrapolated a bunch from there, but the founding words are pretty clear.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dougSF70 4y ago

I guess free speech that is proveably false is what is at stake here. Conspiracy theories are OK provided they are cannot be proven to be untrue.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Ignoring that Jones is a garbage human and just focusing on the case: that isn’t protected free speech? No, while there are Constitutional limits (especially when the injured party is a public figure, see NY Times v. Sullivan), deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech. > Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event? No, it just reinforces the existing precedent that people who deliberately or recklessly spread falsehoods about people can be sued by those injured by the falsehoods. Defamation isn't a new thing in law. And this isn't the first time that has bitten Alex Jones.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
> deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech IANAL (I am not a lawyer; and IANAAJA—I am not an Alex Jones apologist), but I think deserves qualification. My understanding is that it’s not the falsehood which is restricted, it’s the damage caused by purveying the falsehood. If I’m not mistaken I can claim (anywhere under US jurisdiction, unless under oath or otherwise legally sworn to be truthful) that I have a cat (I don’t) without any legal risk to 1A protection whatsoever. Granted, that could raise other eyebrows which might gain legal force if I persisted, presumably around competency to care for myself (or my dog, who I assure you does exist).
- scott_s 4y ago
  Publishing falsehoods about other people is not always protected speech. (Whether the other people are considered “public” or “private” changes the standards for deciding if the speech is protected.)
- ncallaway 4y ago
  While you’re right, that damages are an important factor, it’s worth noting that these don’t have to be strictly limited to direct monetary damages. For example, Jones was defaulted on intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury’s compensatory damages were heavily weighted to IIED. So the damages can be abstract in some sense. But yes, generally defamation requires both material false statements of fact, and damages to a specific party.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

RadixDLT 4y ago

jones is a radio host thats why

jcranmer 4y ago

Defamation is not protected under the first amendment. Jones might have had a credible defense against the allegations of defamation (I haven't bothered to read the original complaint or any of the motions)--and defamation is notoriously hard for the plaintiffs to win in the US--but he was so uncooperative during discovery that he had a default judgement entered against him, meaning the only thing the jury had to decide was how much damages to award.

enragedcacti 4y ago

It doesn't mean anything for protected free speech because: 1) as other commenters have pointed out, this is for defamation against the parents for saying they were actors, sending "reporters" to harass them, etc. 2) He lost the defamation case by default for repeatedly refusing to comply with the court pre-trial. This trial was solely to determine damages. > On September 27, 2021, a district judge in Texas issued three default judgments against Jones, requiring him to pay all damages in two lawsuits. These rulings came after Jones repeatedly failed to hand over documents and evidence as ordered by the court, which the judge characterized as "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_school_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_school_s...

slibhb 4y ago

If Jones had stuck with "Sandy Hook was a false flag operation to take your guns," he would have been in the clear. The issue was his claim that the families whose children were murdered were "crisis actors".

luxuryballs 4y ago
It’s also interesting because he could still be 100% correct and they actually be crisis actors and the whole nine yards but that doesn’t actually matter in the outcome of the case as far as I can tell.
- danso 4y ago
  How would Jones be found liable for defamation if his claims were “100% correct”?
  - vkou 4y ago
    By not showing up to court, and by not complying with discovery. Which is what he did, and why there are two default judgements against him. It doesn't matter how right you are, or how stupid a lawsuit against you is - if you don't show up, you aren't likely to win.
    - danso 4y ago
      Presumably he would’ve made a greater effort to show up to trial had he an airtight case for the truth.
  - luxuryballs 4y ago
    If it’s confirmed he was wrong then who would be even asking?
- ncallaway 4y ago
  If he was 100% correct, it seems deeply unlikely that he would’ve dodged discovery the way he did.

gizmo686 4y ago

> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event? Not in any legal sense. 1) Defamation is already well established in US law; no novel legal questions came up regarding the borders of protected speach in this case. 2) Precedents are never set at trials. In order for anything from this case to become precedent, it would need to be appealed. Even then, the precedent is limited to the jurisdiction of the appellate court. For this to result in a national precedent, it would need to make its way to the Supreme Court. 3) It was already ruled that Jones is liable, this decision is entirely about the amount. The ruling on liability was not based on the merits of the case, but instead on procedural concerns. Specifically, in the words of the court: > Defendants' dicovery conduct in this case has shown flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilies of discovery under the rules. The Court finds Defendants' conduct is greatly aggravated by the consistent pattern of discovery abuse throughout the other Sandy Hook cases pending before this court. ... In sum, Defendants have been engaged in pervasis and persistent obstruction of the discovery process in general. The Court is also faced with Defendants' refusal to produce critical evidence. Defendants have shown a deliberate, contumacious, and unwarranted disregard for this Court's authority. Based on the record before it, this Court finds that Defendants' egregious discovery abuse justifies a presumption that its defenses lack merit. If there is any precedent to be set here, it would not be about the merits of the defamation case, but about the due process implications of the default judgement. Having said that, I found that to be an even bigger stretch then a hypothetical challenge on the merits, as Jones was given ample oppurtunity to participate but simply choose not to. https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/September-27-2021-Court-Order-on-Motion-for-Default-Judgement.pdf https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Septe...

sophacles 4y ago
There may be due process concerns over refusing to follow the due process?
- ncallaway 4y ago
  Jones was afforded due process. Due process requires you to participate in the _process_, which he refused to do repeatedly, for years. He can appeal, but the authority for a trial court to issue a default judgement is not new precedent but rather well established. It’s quite _rare_, but it’s happened before.

chrononaut 4y ago

> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event? Interestingly, despite whether people believe free speech applies or not, the argument whether it could be considered free speech is actually irrelevant because Alex failed to test that defense by defaulting in the original trials by failing to turn over documents. As such, I can't imagine this would set a precedent. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/alex-jones-sa...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mypalmike 4y ago

"All dog owners are part of a secret cabal that eats babies" is protected speech. "This specific dog owner, Judy Smith, is part of a secret cabal that eats babies" is libelous. ... or at potentially so. There are situations where it might not be found libelous.