Comment by ternaryoperator
1 day ago
Alex Jones lost a civil case to the families of the victims. There was no first amendment issue because the first amendment specifies what the government can and cannot limit w.r.t. speech.
1 day ago
Alex Jones lost a civil case to the families of the victims. There was no first amendment issue because the first amendment specifies what the government can and cannot limit w.r.t. speech.
> There was no first amendment issue because the first amendment specifies what the government can and cannot limit w.r.t. speech.
Defamation is by definition unprotected speech, but in the US the legal criteria of what is protected and unprotected speech fundamentally revolve around the First Amendment. The courts, part of the government, enforce civil disputes. The First Amendment applies to civil lawsuits which would directly or indirectly restrict or compel speech.
Alex Jones met the criteria for defamation in multiple civil cases because he spread false statements (conspiracy theories, to be clear), he ignored every indication that his statements were false (in a way that I believe fulfills at least the "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not" branch of the actual malice standard established in Sullivan [1]), and his statements harmed the families reputations (to the point where people motivated by or hiding behind his lies threatened the families [2] and defaced at least one victim's grave [3]).
Disclaimer: I personally believe that Alex Jones knew his statements were false and spread them anyway (the "with knowledge that it was false" branch of actual malice).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
[3] https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-sa...