Alex Jones defamation cases reach deep into free speech debate

Alex Jones, of InfoWars, yells at protestors outside of Toyota Center before a Trump campaign rally, Monday, October 22, 2018, in Houston. Alex Jones, of InfoWars, yells at protestors outside of Toyota Center before a Trump campaign rally, Monday, October 22, 2018, in Houston. Photo: Mark Mulligan / Houston Chronicle Buy photo Photo: Mark Mulligan / Houston Chronicle Image 1 of / 14 Caption Close Alex Jones defamation cases reach deep into free speech debate 1 / 14 Back to Gallery

NEWTOWN — Those following the defamation cases by grieving families against extremist Alex Jones know that he doesn’t argue anymore that the massacre of 26 kids and educators at Sandy Hook School was a hoax.

But only Jones knows what he truly believed when he said the worst crime in modern Connecticut history was “staged,” “synthetic,” “manufactured,” “a giant hoax” and “completely fake with actors,” with “inside job written all over it.”

What Jones knew about the untruths he broadcasted on his InfoWars program is at the heart of the lawsuits filed by 10 Sandy Hook victims’ families and an FBI agent in Connecticut and Texas. But the reach of the story is much wider than whether Jones is liable for defamation.

The cases have the potential to shape the debate between free speech advocates who say outlying opinion, regardless of how outrageous, is protected under the First Amendment, and civil justice advocates who say there is a price to pay for recklessly abusing the truth.

“There is a difference between being misinformed with your own opinion and dishonestly conveying that opinion,” said David Schulz, a lecturer and senior research scholar at the Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic. “The families are saying that Alex Jones didn’t really believe that Sandy Hook didn’t happen, but he was using it as a marketing device to get more customers.”

Jones’ attorney, Marc Randazza, agrees more is at stake in the cases than the suffering of Sandy Hook families who are outraged by opinions he has renounced.

Randazza said the very principles of the First Amendment are on trial.

“He has the right to be wrong,” Randazza said. “If we are going to require strict factual liability on every public event, we can’t have a free press.”

Because Jones is among the most popular extremists in America, and the Sandy Hook families are among the most well-known involuntary public figures, legal experts and other observers believe the more the families prevail in court, the more their cases will impact everyday debates about truth and lies.

“If the plaintiffs prevail as they have so far, it could cause people to realize that you can’t just make things up with impunity, and that would be a good thing,” said Leslie Levin, a law professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law. “If the plaintiffs prevail, it could cause more people to understand that the First Amendment does have limits.”

The headlines about Jones’ cases come at a time of national discussions between civic-minded people who believe in objective truth and independent-minded people, distrustful of mainstream institutions, who believe in alternative facts.

One observer says successful action against Jones in the courts could tip the balance in the debate.

“There is some recent research about misinformation showing when people believe a lie like the kind Alex Jones has peddled, and people are exposed to evidence to the contrary, they believe the lie less,” said Alexander Coppock, an assistant professor of political science at Yale University and a resident fellow of the Institute for Social Policy Studies. “In that case, it would help correct some of the damage that he has created.”

Behind the headlines

Jones made headlines last week when a Superior Court judge in Bridgeport gave the families’ attorneys permission to question Jones under oath.

Although the ruling is a standard part of the pre-trial phase it was an important victory for the families, who are trying to answer a motion by Jones’ attorneys to dismiss the lawsuits.

“From the beginning, we have said that Jones knowingly peddled false and malicious narratives in order to make money at the expense of Sandy Hook families’ grief, safety and security,” the families’ lead attorney, Josh Kokoff said in a prepared statement.

Jones’ attorney disagreed, saying he never saw any room to question facts that the Sandy Hook massacre happened, but that he sees room for others to question facts.

“I won’t fault a human mind for saying it is more likely that the government staged this than a gunman walked in and killed 20 babies,” Randazza said. “But if you believe that the government is always lying to us and the press is complicit, why wouldn’t you believe that it was a hoax?”

Sandy Hook families have been fighting for years to hold Jones accountable for his statements.

“It is far beyond time that he be held accountable for the pain his false narratives have caused so many,” Mark Barden, whose son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting, said after the judge’s ruling.

For the families, the right to question Jones under oath is the latest indication that the fight has turned the corner.

Last year, for example, two parents of a slain Sandy Hook first-grader who filed a defamation suit against Jones in Texas called out Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for providing extremists such as Jones with “a safe haven for hate.”

Facebook responded along with YouTube, Apple and other social media companies with suspensions and restrictions on Jones and his InfoWars sites, citing him for promoting hate speech.

Quinnipiac law Professor John Thomas said the families’ court cases could influence the discussion about defamation and the First Amendment on social media.

“I think the cases have substantial possibilities for broader impact,” Thomas said. “The extent to which parties can say horrendous things and the extent to which groups have been personally injured could play out very dramatically.”

Jones’ attorney said the integrity of the First Amendment depends on Jones enjoying the same protection as anyone else in the media, even if Jones has positioned himself to be unlike anyone else in the media.

“I don’t know how you can question the official version of an event or the mainstream narrative without offending someone,” Randazza said.

But did Jones cross the defamation line when he called the grieving families crisis actors?

“Defamation is a word you use when you are the plaintiff,” Randazza said. “And I don’t even know what a crisis actor means — isn’t anybody involved in a crisis an actor?”

That’s semantics.

“Defamation cases are all about semantics,” Randazza said, adding that honest mistakes are protected under the First Amendment.

“We need that kind of breathing room,” he said. “Otherwise an open and robust debate in the free press is stifled.”

rryser@newstimes.com 203-731-3342