On Friday, the Texas jury awarded Alex Jones $42.5million in punitive damages. It was for statements Jones made after the Sandy Hook shooting. These punitive damages were in addition to $4.lmillion of actual damages that the parent received on Thursday.
In the simplest terms, Alex Jones claimed, in his most Alex Jones-like fashion, that Sandy Hook’s 2012 school shooting, which left 20 children and six adults dead, never took place. Instead, according to Jones, the victims were “crisis actors,” and it was all a huge conspiracy between some parents and media organizations.
This claim is obviously absurd. But this was Alex Jones right?
The parents claimed that their reputations were damaged and that Alex Jones’ statements had resulted in them getting death threats from Jones’ followers.
Jones is easy to hate. His bullsh** conspiratorial approach to news is distasteful. His use of a criminal act as a fundraising instrument by denying the slaughter of 26 people had happened wrong by any standard. Before we rejoice in the evil harpies of wrongspeak we need to consider its effect.
I’m not a lawyer, but putting aside the bizarre fact that Jones’ legal team permitted a default judgment against him, it is difficult to understand why the Jones lawsuit was ever allowed. It is unlikely that any person involved in the Sandy Hook shooting sustained reputational damage. No matter what Jones claimed, there was never a national movement that said, “Hey, that shooting at Sandy Hook was bogus.” On the contrary, President Obama eulogized the victims.
You could argue that Obama being associated with something damages reputations of everyone involved. However, this is not what the lawsuit claims. Plaintiffs claimed they suffered injuries because Jones urged listeners to not believe their interviews. Reputational loss does not come from hurt feelings. Accusations made against you by fringe figures don’t hurt your reputation. Many RedState journalists would enjoy a comfortable retirement and be able to receive death threats from fringe figures if they were to make public statements about the subjects of their stories.
It was nothing more than using legal processes to sanction an unpopular person who said stupid things. If that is a crime, we are all f***ed.
Using the same facts in the Jones case, let’s take the case of Caroline Edwards, Aquilino Gonell, Harry Dunn, Daniel Hodges, Michael Fanone, or any other police officer involved in the January 6 demonstrations. Under the “Jones Standard, ” they are entitled to relief from reputational harm if anyone claims they were in no danger because they were. They would win if anyone claimed that saying the events of January 6 were not an “insurrection,” as they have publicly taken that position, and contrary claims harm their reputations. Anyone who sympathized with the protesters and said that Rosanne Boyland’s beating death and cold-blooded killing of Ashliibabbit were justified, would be eligible for monetary damages. They could have been threatened by people criticizing them for their actions and words.
If Dr. Anthony Fauci claims COVID, he could claim damages using the same standards as any other person. He might be required to appear at a future tribunal before being sentenced to a prolonged prison term.
Antifa members that have been cleared of all charges in Seattle, Portland and elsewhere could follow the Jones model and demand payment for their reputational harm.
Trump is more guilty than anyone of spreading lies if it’s a crime to do so. It’s not, actually, as the Jones suit has never focused on punishing reckless, obviously false speech. It’s about punishing an outsider.
Using the Jones case as a model, all the plaintiff needs to prove to prevail is a) the person making the statement is unpopular, 2) the statement made is not within the conventional wisdom, and 3) the plaintiff’s feelings were hurt.
Jones might be a shady character and he may even get punished, but it is extremely dangerous to apply the principles established by this successful lawsuit, as well as the awarded damages. This lawsuit was a clear violation of First Amendment rights and should have been dismissed. This is an essay from the Free Speech Center that claims Jones would have lost his case even if his legal team tried to fight it. It has given the plaintiffs and their lawyers a net worth of almost $50 million. This precedent is extremely dangerous and will continue to haunt us until an appeals court changes it.
About Post Author
