Alex Jones and the Freedom of Speech

[Ender]

I'm not particularly a fan of Alex Jones, but the conviction against him was completely against the 1st Amendment & can affect all of us.

Judge Nap says it perfectly:

Alex Jones and the Freedom of Speech
By Andrew P. Napolitano
October 20, 2022

“Congress shall make no law abridging … the freedom of speech.”
— First Amendment to the Constitution
—
The iconic language of the First Amendment can be recited by schoolchildren, yet it is ignored by judges in Connecticut when the speech has been uttered by Alex Jones.

Since the modern interpretations of the First Amendment began in the late 1960s, opinions on matters of public interest have been protected speech, so long as some reasons for the opinions were articulated. The reasons can be inaccurate, and the opinions can be wild, bizarre or irrational. But if it is an opinion, it is protected speech — except in Connecticut and except if the speaker is Alex Jones.
Here is the backstory.

The tragedy of Sandy Hook — in which a young madman used his parents’ rifle to slaughter 20 schoolchildren and six adults before killing himself — is a lifelong horror for the surviving family members and their friends. This tragedy is also a matter of public interest implicating the right to keep and bear arms, school security, mental health and free speech.

When the First Amendment was ratified, America was a bold experiment in personal liberty. Yet, the First Amendment only restrained Congress. After the Civil War amendments were added to the Constitution, the courts interpreted the 14th Amendment so as to apply the First Amendment to the states as well.

Stated differently, in modern free speech jurisprudence, the First Amendment prohibits all branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — and all governments — local, state and federal — from interfering with or punishing the freedom of speech.
If the First Amendment were repealed, would we have free speech?

Those who believe that the law is only what is written down — called positivism — would say no. Those who believe that our immutable rights come from our humanity — called Natural Law theory — would say that we are naturally free whether the Constitution recognizes it or not. We all need to recognize the dangers of a state judiciary that writes down a negation of a fundamental liberty — expressing an opinion — by calling it a non-opinion.

That’s what happened to Alex Jones.

After the Sandy Hook massacre, Jones opined that it did not happen as the press and the government related it; that it was a set-up by anti-gun activists using actors and props. He persisted in this and offered snippets of odd behavior by the participants in order to cast doubt on the official version of events. The government lies all the time, he argued.

His speech was absolutely protected under modern jurisprudence.

The controlling Supreme Court case is Brandenburg v. Ohio, which teaches that all innocuous public speech about matters of public interest is absolutely protected — even opinion, allegory and satire — and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it. When the parents of the murdered children sued Jones for defamation and mental distress, Jones moved to dismiss the complaints.

When a motion to dismiss is filed, the courts must rule quickly on the law. They must answer the question: Assuming all the allegations are true, does the complaint state a valid, lawful, constitutional claim? The judge to whom these cases were assigned did not rule quickly. She improperly ordered discovery — an exchange of documents between the litigants — prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss.

This was a cardinal error and utterly unnecessary as, in a motion to dismiss, the judicial mind assumes that discovery will show that the plaintiffs’ allegations are supported. When the plaintiffs’ attorneys claimed that they found child pornography among the digitized documents that Jones’ attorneys had sent them, Jones accused the plaintiffs’ attorneys of planting it.

The court was so outraged — not at the presence of child pornography, but at Jones’ allegations about the plaintiffs’ lawyers — that it summarily denied Jones’ motion to dismiss by ignoring the teaching of Brandenburg and doing George Orwell one better by characterizing Jones’ opinions as “non-opinions.”

When Jones declined to supply more discovery than he actually had, this same judge ruled as a matter of law that Jones’ non-opinions had harmed the plaintiffs, and the only issues remaining in the cases addressed the amount of damages Jones owed them. In a tendentious opinion, more conclusory than reasoned, the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed.

Thus, Jones’ two recent trials addressed his wealth, not his liability. He was ordered to pay more than $1 billion.
This is a profound injustice to Alex Jones and to all who are engaged in the opinion business; and it begs for a reversal.

If the First Amendment means what it says, if no government can abridge the freedom of speech, if the 14th Amendment means what it says and the states may not take anyone’s life, liberty or property without due process, if due process means a fair ruling on the merits, then Alex Jones has not had his day in court, and the courts in Connecticut — where his judicial demonization was met with public approval — have emasculated his basic constitutional rights.

In all other states, expressions of opinions on matters of public interest are absolutely protected as natural rights and viewed as a means of challenging those discussing all sides of public issues. Only in Connecticut has a court system summarily — without a trial and in defiance of precedent — declared an opinion to be a non-opinion, thereby stripping a litigant of his natural and constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

For those who value freedom, this is a time to recall Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Alex Jones has the largest viewership in the podcast world — larger than the television networks. Now we know what government does to silence its most effective critic.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/10/...dom-of-speech/

[Sonny Tufts]

Judge Nap overlooks the fact that at least one of the complaints in the Connecticut case alleged that Jones never believed that the shooting was a hoax and that his statements were lies that were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth (this is the legal test for defamation claims involving matters of public interest). They were not mere opinions as Nap claims. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/12mH...EeAoxi_Fj/view

Assuming these allegations are true, the case shouldn't have been dismissed because such speech isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Judge Nap also failed to mention the reason the trial judge rendered a default judgment against Jones: his willful disobedience of court orders regarding discovery and Jones's out-of-court accusation that an attorney for the Plaintiffs had planted child pornography in materials Jones had produced during discovery and his threatening and harassing the attorney. While the latter ground raises significant First Amendment issues, the former does not. One wonders what Judge Nap would have done as a trial judge if a party deliberately disobeyed his orders.

The Connecticut Supreme Court's unanimous (7-0) decision is here: https://law.justia.com/cases/connect...1/sc20327.html

[TheTexan]

Judge Nap overlooks the fact that at least one of the complaints in the Connecticut case alleged that Jones never believed that the shooting was a hoax and that his statements were lies that were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth (this is the legal test for defamation claims involving matters of public interest). They were not mere opinions as Nap claims. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/12mH...EeAoxi_Fj/view

Assuming these allegations are true, the case shouldn't have been dismissed because such speech isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Judge Nap also failed to mention the reason the trial judge rendered a default judgment against Jones: his willful disobedience of court orders regarding discovery and Jones's out-of-court accusation that an attorney for the Plaintiffs had planted child pornography in materials Jones had produced during discovery and his threatening and harassing the attorney. While the latter ground raises significant First Amendment issues, the former does not. One wonders what Judge Nap would have done as a trial judge if a party deliberately disobeyed his orders.

The Connecticut Supreme Court's unanimous (7-0) decision is here: https://law.justia.com/cases/connect...1/sc20327.html

Hogwash. Your comment warrants no further response.

[ClaytonB]

Hogwash. Your comment warrants no further response.

Some people struggle with basic English like, "NO LAW ABRIDGING". I wonder how they function in life, like "STOP" must mean "it's OK to just keep driving through if you feel like it", right?

[Sonny Tufts]

Hogwash. Your comment warrants no further response.

I see you're still an ignoramus.

At this point the case isn't about the First Amendment at all, for a very simple reason: Jones took that issue off the table. By his willful disobedience of the trial court's orders regarding discovery he invited and received a default judgment on the merits of the case so that the only issue left to decide was the measure of damages. In other words, he lost the opportunity to litigate the First Amendment issues.

Jones isn't the poster boy for Freedom of Speech. He's an arrogant scumbag who essentially shot the bird to the trial judge (he did the same thing in the Texas litigation with the same result) and by his own actions forfeited any First Amendment defense. Had he not done so the case might have resulted in a Jones victory and some interesting First Amendment jurisprudence.

So don't weep for Jones. And don't accept Judge Nap's mischaracterization of the case. The result had nothing to do with the First Amendment or Jones's due process rights. It had everything to do with his pigheadedness and stupidity.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

[dannno]

Judge Nap also failed to mention the reason the trial judge rendered a default judgment against Jones: his willful disobedience of court orders regarding discovery and Jones's out-of-court accusation that an attorney for the Plaintiffs had planted child pornography in materials Jones had produced during discovery and his threatening and harassing the attorney. While the latter ground raises significant First Amendment issues, the former does not. One wonders what Judge Nap would have done as a trial judge if a party deliberately disobeyed his orders.

No, you failed to even read the article.

When a motion to dismiss is filed, the courts must rule quickly on the law. They must answer the question: Assuming all the allegations are true, does the complaint state a valid, lawful, constitutional claim? The judge to whom these cases were assigned did not rule quickly. She improperly ordered discovery — an exchange of documents between the litigants — prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss.

This was a cardinal error and utterly unnecessary as, in a motion to dismiss, the judicial mind assumes that discovery will show that the plaintiffs’ allegations are supported. When the plaintiffs’ attorneys claimed that they found child pornography among the digitized documents that Jones’ attorneys had sent them, Jones accused the plaintiffs’ attorneys of planting it.


The court was so outraged — not at the presence of child pornography, but at Jones’ allegations about the plaintiffs’ lawyers — that it summarily denied Jones’ motion to dismiss by ignoring the teaching of Brandenburg and doing George Orwell one better by characterizing Jones’ opinions as “non-opinions.”


When Jones declined to supply more discovery than he actually had, this same judge ruled as a matter of law that Jones’ non-opinions had harmed the plaintiffs, and the only issues remaining in the cases addressed the amount of damages Jones owed them. In a tendentious opinion, more conclusory than reasoned, the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed.


Thus, Jones’ two recent trials addressed his wealth, not his liability. He was ordered to pay more than $1 billion.

[dannno]

And don't accept Judge Nap's mischaracterization of the case.

I don't accept your mischaracterization of Judge Nap's article because you didn't even bother to read it.

You clearly spent a lot of time reading the leftist fake news articles and arguments, but you can't take 2 minutes to read something on the other side.

You are a bad, bad lawyer.

How difficult would it have been for the plaintiff attorneys to send chopo to Jones' email account (which, ended up in his spam folder, and was never opened)? Why was the only chopo found in his account that had well over a decade worth of emails sent happen to be during the time in which the plaintiff attorneys could have sent it? Why is that an unreasonable accusation to make?

Why didn't the judge take inventory and records of what Jones turned over during discovery? Do you have an example of another case of defamation in the entire history of defamation lawsuits where more records were turned over than in the Jones trial? If not, how can you say that Jones didn't cooperate in this record breaking case? Why was the content that Jones allegedly didn't turn over to the plaintiff's attorneys ultimately used in the trial against him?

You don't know anything about this trial other than what you read in leftist propaganda. Your opinion is totally invalid.

[dannno]

Jones isn't the poster boy for Freedom of Speech. He's an arrogant scumbag who essentially shot the bird to the trial judge (he did the same thing in the Texas litigation with the same result) and by his own actions forfeited any First Amendment defense. Had he not done so the case might have resulted in a Jones victory and some interesting First Amendment jurisprudence.

I can find this in the "$#@! around and find out" section of the Constitution, right?

You are such a joke. You could have come in here and been reasonable and said that the amount was out of control, but maybe Jones had some liability.. which is incorrect based on the facts, but at least reasonable. Instead you act like a total clown, don't read any of the arguments and not say anything about the outrageous amounts the families were awarded. Amounts that are at least 100x more than anything remotely comparable. At least 10-20x more than if Jones had actually murdered the children himself.

Do you have any evidence that Jones didn't believe what he said? Do you have any evidence Jones directed his audience to harass the families?

There is no evidence at all for anything they accused him of doing. He did not popularize the theory that it was staged, he stayed away from it for months while videos on youtube that were promoting it were racking up tens of millions of views. He didn't promote the theory so much as cover it, for a very short time, by having a couple of seemingly credible guests on to talk about it. When he found out they weren't being completely truthful or accurate, after doing some research once the interviews were completed, he ditched the subject and told his staff not to touch it anymore.

[TheTexan]

I see you're still an ignoramus.

And I see you're still a petty tyrant.

[Snowball]

Alex is appealing the decision.

[unknown]

Judge Nap overlooks the fact that at least one of the complaints in the Connecticut case alleged that Jones never believed that the shooting was a hoax and that his statements were lies that were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth (this is the legal test for defamation claims involving matters of public interest). They were not mere opinions as Nap claims. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/12mH...EeAoxi_Fj/view

Assuming these allegations are true, the case shouldn't have been dismissed because such speech isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Judge Nap also failed to mention the reason the trial judge rendered a default judgment against Jones: his willful disobedience of court orders regarding discovery and Jones's out-of-court accusation that an attorney for the Plaintiffs had planted child pornography in materials Jones had produced during discovery and his threatening and harassing the attorney. While the latter ground raises significant First Amendment issues, the former does not. One wonders what Judge Nap would have done as a trial judge if a party deliberately disobeyed his orders.

The Connecticut Supreme Court's unanimous (7-0) decision is here: https://law.justia.com/cases/connect...1/sc20327.html

Alex claims that they did cooperate, that his attorneys provided discovery and that the judges and courts are lying.

Considering the fact that these courts were completely biased, I tend to believe AJ.

[TheTexan]

Yet another data point that shows this country is rapidly deteriorating into hot tyranny.

Which is maybe for the best.

All else considered.

[Sonny Tufts]

No, you failed to even read the article.

I read it, but unlike you I understood the legal points he was raising.

You don't know anything about this trial other than what you read in leftist propaganda. Your opinion is totally invalid.

I read the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court, did you? Or are you so paranoid that you think that court is full of leftists? You're not going to trot out the lame old excuse that the courts are corrupt, are you?

You are such a joke. You could have come in here and been reasonable and said that the amount was out of control, but maybe Jones had some liability.. which is incorrect based on the facts, but at least reasonable. Instead you act like a total clown, don't read any of the arguments and not say anything about the outrageous amounts the families were awarded.

That's because I was responding to (a) Judge Nap's claim that the trial judge should have dismissed the case before discovery, (b) his failure to mention that Jones had deliberately violated court orders, and (c) his claim that Jones's due process rights were violated by the trial judge's rendering a default judgement on the liability issue. I wasn't addressing anything else.

It would be interesting to ask Judge Nap if he ever rendered a default judgment against a litigant who disobeyed his discovery orders, as permitted by the New Jersey Rules.

[oyarde]

So free speech costs 1 billion or more and the publik is ok with that .

[Anti Federalist]

So free speech costs 1 billion or more and the publik is ok with that .

Freedom is not popular.

[WisconsinLiberty]

The Tom Woods Show – Ep. 2219 The Absurd Alex Jones Trials

Tom Woods
14th October 2022

The great Robert Barnes joins me to run through all the irregularities in the Alex Jones trial, and what they mean for the rest of us.


Alex Jones/Infowars
https://www.infowars.com/

Tom Woods Show
https://tomwoods.com/

[oyarde]

Freedom is not popular.

I havnt really ever doubted that but this is absurd.

[dannno]

I read it, but unlike you I understood the legal points he was raising.

So you either have poor english language skills, or you are dishonest.

Judge Nap also failed to mention the reason the trial judge rendered a default judgment against Jones: his willful disobedience of court orders regarding discovery and Jones's out-of-court accusation that an attorney for the Plaintiffs had planted child pornography in materials Jones had produced during discovery and his threatening and harassing the attorney.

You literally said he failed to mention two things, both of which he spent several paragraphs talking about.

When a motion to dismiss is filed, the courts must rule quickly on the law. They must answer the question: Assuming all the allegations are true, does the complaint state a valid, lawful, constitutional claim? The judge to whom these cases were assigned did not rule quickly. She improperly ordered discovery — an exchange of documents between the litigants — prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss.

This was a cardinal error and utterly unnecessary as, in a motion to dismiss, the judicial mind assumes that discovery will show that the plaintiffs’ allegations are supported. When the plaintiffs’ attorneys claimed that they found child pornography among the digitized documents that Jones’ attorneys had sent them, Jones accused the plaintiffs’ attorneys of planting it.


The court was so outraged — not at the presence of child pornography, but at Jones’ allegations about the plaintiffs’ lawyers — that it summarily denied Jones’ motion to dismiss by ignoring the teaching of Brandenburg and doing George Orwell one better by characterizing Jones’ opinions as “non-opinions.”


When Jones declined to supply more discovery than he actually had, this same judge ruled as a matter of law that Jones’ non-opinions had harmed the plaintiffs, and the only issues remaining in the cases addressed the amount of damages Jones owed them. In a tendentious opinion, more conclusory than reasoned, the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed.

Did you even consider that the court was asking for more documents during discovery than Jones actually had? You keep acting like everything the court said is correct without any evidence.