Alex Jones has, experts say, used the U.S. Constitution as both a shield and a sword.
When Jones first started talking about the Sandy Hook shooting, the day of the massacre itself, he said it was a manufactured crisis intended to create enough sympathy and outrage to enact gun control legislation.
Now that he faces the second of three civil trials to decide damages after courts in both Connecticut and Texas handed down a default judgment in favor of Sandy Hook families, he has claimed that his First Amendment rights to free speech have been limited by a judge hes called a tyrant.
During the current trial, Chris Mattei, attorney for the Sandy Hook families, played a video of Jones saying Sandy Hook and the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting a few months prior were false flag operations designed as a pretense to limit the Second Amendment and part of a global conspiracy out to kill and enslave them, Mattei said, quoting Jones.
Earlier in the trial, Jones went on Infowars and told his viewers they came for the Second Amendment with Sandy Hook and now they were coming for the First Amendment, too.
The judge in the case, Barbara Bellis, has attempted to avoid the whole issue by barring Jones from saying in the courtroom that his free speech rights under the First Amendment have been compromised. This trial is about damages. Jones was already found liable for defamation.
The First Amendment is not an issue, Bellis said.
That has not stopped Jones from talking about it outside the courthouse.
We're supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave, and they're using these dead children not just to try to get rid of the Second Amendment, but now the First Amendment, he said during a press conference on the courthouse steps.
There are limits to the First Amendment. It does not, for example, protect a right to spread misinformation.
It's very frustrating to see someone who has apparently, from all indications, been spreading knowing lies, said David Schulz, director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. To try to hide behind the protections of the First Amendment is quite frustrating. It's not what the First Amendment protects. The Supreme Court has said that there's no First Amendment value in lies, and lies that cause harm can be punished.
While Jones might have the First Amendment right to say what he thinks on the air or in court, he cannot use his platform to lie about individuals if those lies cause harm.
He certainly has a right to express his opinion about the right to bear arms, but that's not what's going on, Schulz said. And he doesn't have the right to make up lies to try to fan the flames of, you know, Second Amendment advocates.
William Dunlap, a Constitutional law professor at Quinnipiac University, said there are many limits to the freedom of speech.
Both Congress and the states have a lot of law regulating or punishing speech, he said. "Among the categories of speech that are not protected completely by the First Amendment is defamation, which is what this case is all about.
Throughout the current trial, and the previous trial held in Texas, the question arose of whether or not Jones is a journalist and if Infowars practices journalism. The First Amendment protects not only freedom of speech but freedom of the press.
Opinions are protected, as are honest mistakes.
The Supreme Court over the years has been very careful to protect innocent mistakes when they're made by news organizations on issues of public concern, because, as it is explained, errors inevitably happen in the give-and-take of covering the news, particularly when you're under a deadline, Schulz said.
But Jones and Infowars, Schulz said, did not make an honest mistake when they suggested, year after year, that the parents were actors and the massacre never happened.
What has been going on here is a pattern over the years of repeating information that has been shown to be untrue, he said. The First Amendment says that when you're talking about matters of public concern, that there has to be a knowing falsehood.
Jones has said that he genuinely believed the Sandy Hook massacre was faked, but thats not good enough, according to Schulz.
You can misbelieve something, he said. But when something is so outrageous, so unbelievable, that only a reckless person would put it into circulation. would repeat it, that's not protected. And to continue it over a number of years, it's certainly conduct that can be punishable consistent with the First Amendment.
Ryan ONeill, a professor at Quinnipiac University and a partner with the Law Offices of Mark Sherman, practicing in the areas of criminal defense and defamation, said he believed Jones is being misleading.
Jones is not allowed to say in court that his Constitutional right to free speech is being violated. Hes also not allowed to say in court that he believed Sandy Hook was a calculated false flag maneuver to take away Second Amendment rights.
That, ONeill explained, is because Jones was already found liable.
I understand that he has a problem with the fact that he never had a jury decide whether he was liable, but that was decided by the judgment of the court, ONeill said. The problem is, that that judgment happened because he did not follow the rules of the court with respect to how information is supposed to be exchanged.
New Haven-based attorney Alex Taubes explained that there are rules in any court case.
Both sides have to comply with deadlines, both sides have to hand over to the other side their evidence, he said. Alex Jones wants to claim our system of government, or freedom of speech, open courts, as his savior, but when it came time to actually comply with court orders he refused to do so.
Its not just the court in Connecticut that issued a default judgment in favor of the Sandy Hook families because Jones had so flagrantly ignored the courts rules, specifically the rules on discovery. A judge in Texas decided similarly.
The fact that two judges in two different states reached the same conclusion about Alex Jones litigation conduct tells you, I think, that it was very substantial violations and it wasn't just something that was done by accident, ONeill said.
In ignoring the court's rules, Jones lost his chance to make a free speech argument.
He's talking about things that he would have had the opportunity to potentially argue if he had followed the rules, ONeill said. He didn't follow the rules, and so what Bellis is saying is, It doesn't matter whether you believed it, or what your beliefs are based on right now, because that issue has come and gone. You had the chance to litigate it. You decided not to follow our rules when litigating it, and I had no other choice but to sanction you by deciding the issue of liability.
That is, unless plaintiffs decide to raise questions of motive themselves. If Mattei and his colleagues suggest, as they have, that Jones motive was money, that allows Jones to offer a counter argument.
ONeill called it a calculated high-risk, high-reward scenario. Every time the plaintiffs lawyers raise political issues, Jones lawyer, Norm Pattis, says they opened the door.
Injecting some of these things into the case certainly does arouse more negative emotions toward Alex Jones when they frame it in their way, ONeill said. But it does allow opportunities for Pattis in the defense to start injecting some of these other things that can create more distractions, or also create more justifications in the minds of some folks that might be deciding this.
On the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, literally as the parents were learning that their children had died, Jones was on the air claiming that the massacre was a manufactured false flag operation intended to take away his and his viewers Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Plaintiffs have argued in court that Jones was essentially fear-mongering, that his real motivation was and remains money.
It's come out in the trial so far that he had sponsors, advertisers that were gun manufacturers, and that they were courting other gun manufacturers as advertisers, said University of Connecticut journalism professor Amanda J. Crawford.
The Second Amendment has been, to some degree, a pivot point on which the strategies of both the plaintiffs and defense have rested. When Pattis questions a plaintiff on the stand, he asks whether or not they knew how Jones felt about the Second Amendment, and how the shooting changed their anti-gun activism.
He wants to convince the jury that the goal of the plaintiffs is to silence Jones free speech to talk about guns, that this is a plot to undermine Jones because they don't like what he believes about guns, Crawford said.
There is a connection between mass shootings and gun sales, as Dunlap said: Every time that there is a mass shooting or some other atrocity involving guns, that the sale of guns would go up, because the manufacturers and organizations like the National Rifle Association would say, OK, now they're going to come after your guns.
Claiming that your Second Amendment rights are at risk is a business and advocacy strategy Dunlap said has been going on for years, for decades. Proposals for gun legislation may make it harder for certain people to get guns, those laws are not unconstitutional, he said.
Though he said he disagrees with the substance of Jones arguments disagree with them in a big way Dunlap said using the Bill of Rights to defend your beliefs is, in and of itself, why the Bill of Rights exists.
There aren't very many individual protections in the Constitution itself, but in the Bill of Rights, in the post Civil War amendments, are a lot of rights that I think people are entirely justified in using to protect their behavior, he said.
Jones cannot speak on the record, in court, about the First Amendment, something Crawford sees as a bit of a missed opportunity.
Jones spread misinformation about a national (and local) tragedy. A discussion on the record, in court on where First Amendment protections begin and end might have been valuable to our society.
The court has said that because he didn't cooperate, he can't make his First Amendment argument, she said. Does that help our conversation about what is misinformation, what's allowed in the First Amendment? Not at all.
The default judgment is good for the families, Crawford said. It means they dont actually have to prove liability, just the extent of the damage Jones caused. But that also means the discourse is limited.
If you're looking at this as a case that is important in our current moment, about how do we deal with misinformation through the institutions that exist, from an academic perspective its somewhat disappointing that we don't get to have a trial that deals with the merits of this case, she said.
Jones did not explicitly name many of the people who are suing him (though he did name and publicly mock father Robbie Parker, who took the stand recently). But there will be no serious discussion about what Crawford called the finer points of libel.
There will be no arguments about whether or not his speech was protected by the First Amendment, she said. There'll be no arguments about group libel, and whether or not he actually libeled, defamed or inflicted emotional distress on individuals that he did not name.
The default judgment may have been warranted, Crawford said, but it hands Jones a talking point, the ability to claim on television, in press conferences and everywhere else outside of the courtroom, that his rights have been stolen.
He will forever be able to argue that he didn't have a trial on the merits, that he was hamstrung by the legal system, she said. He gets to prove his argument that they were out to get him.
He gets to say that this was the government going after his First Amendment rights, because he didn't get to make that case, she said.
Read the original post:
How Alex Jones twists the Constitution in his Sandy Hook trial - Danbury News Times
- Opinion | Black airman's tragic death highlights the Second Amendment's failures - The Washington Post - The Washington Post - May 23rd, 2024 [May 23rd, 2024]
- Trump claims the Second Amendment is 'under siege' in NRA speech - The Associated Press - May 23rd, 2024 [May 23rd, 2024]
- Roger Fortson's Death Shows the Conflict Between Gun Rights and Paranoid Cops - Reason - May 23rd, 2024 [May 23rd, 2024]
- How the SCOTUS Ghost Gun Case Might Jeopardize Other Gun Laws - The Trace - May 23rd, 2024 [May 23rd, 2024]
- Supreme Court Declines to Hear Second Amendment Case on Maryland 'Assault Weapons' Ban - TPUSA LIVE - Turning Point USA - May 23rd, 2024 [May 23rd, 2024]
- Civics education: Learn the basics of why the Second Amendment exists - Tennessean - May 1st, 2024 [May 1st, 2024]
- The Future of the Second Amendment - Berkeley Law - April 18th, 2024 [April 18th, 2024]
- Mental Health Firearms Bill Divides Second Amendment Supporters in State House - NH Journal - April 18th, 2024 [April 18th, 2024]
- Biden Administration Unlawfully Expands Background Checks on Firearms Sales - Kevin Cramer - April 18th, 2024 [April 18th, 2024]
- The Second Amendment and 18-to-20-Year-Olds - Reason - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Chatbots like crime, hate firearms: A Second Amendment study - Washington Examiner - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- OK: Oppose H.J.R. 1034, Unless Amended! | GOA - Gun Owners of America - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Republicans blast Biden admin's 'Red Flag Operation' as one that will 'violate' Second Amendment rights - Fox News - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Gordon Signed Four Second Amendment Bills, Vetoed Another - WyoToday.com - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- A new resource center in the DOJ has a lot of people worried about their Second Amendment rights - Tri-State Alert - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- 'It Has Everything to Do With Race': Protesters Clash Outside Kyle Rittenhouse Event - Yahoo News UK - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Governor signs firearm bills, vetoes bill to repeal gun-free zones - Buckrail - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- FISA and the Second Amendment: Gun Owners Beware - RealClearPolicy - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- Second Amendment protects the rest | Commentary | norfolkdailynews.com - Norfolk Daily News - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- Ricketts Signs Brief to Defend Gun Owners and Second Amendment - Rural Radio Network - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- Dems bow to local control on guns then take it away | BRAUCHLER - coloradopolitics.com - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- Augusta County Second Amendment guy wants to protect schoolkids from books? - Augusta Free Press - February 3rd, 2024 [February 3rd, 2024]
- The 2nd Amendment is not about Hunting - WIBC - Indianapolis News & Politics - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Opinion: Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights in St. Louis ... - The Missouri Times - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Statement by Vice President Kamala Harris on the Mass Shooting in ... - The White House - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Letter: Second Amendment matters more than ever - Quad-City Times - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- The Supreme Court is seriously considering whether domestic ... - Vox.com - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Letter urging House Speaker to act on gun violence sent hours prior ... - Woodland Daily Democrat - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Vermont: Gun-Controllers Are Abandoning Their Rural Roots - NRA ILA - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Foundation prepares to disburse roughly $32 million in legal aid ... - The Florida Bar - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Critics Sock Sean Hannity Over His Bizarre Personal 'Plan' For Mass ... - Yahoo! Voices - October 27th, 2023 [October 27th, 2023]
- Second Amendment Roundup: Fusillade of Amicus Briefs Filed in Rahimi - Reason - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- 12 Defensive Gun Uses Bare Absurdity of Attacking Gun Rights - Daily Signal - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- Horrific Attack In Israel Shows Critical Importance Of Second Amendment In America | David Hookstead - Outkick - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- OPINION: Second Amendment rights deserve protection - The ... - Stanly News & Press - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- Noel Hudson: What, exactly, was the well-regulated militia? - VTDigger - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- Berkshire residents and officials join the debate at the statehouse ... - Berkshire Eagle - October 12th, 2023 [October 12th, 2023]
- Old gun controls that were constitutionally repealed are not precedents for modern gun control - Reason - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Rahimi: The Case That Might Turn the Court Even More Extreme on Guns - The New Republic - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Second Amendment proponents fear public health emergencies ... - The Statehouse File - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- UGA political groups debate the Second Amendment at political ... - Red and Black - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- From the Second Amendment to OxyContin Settlements, Here Are ... - WTTW News - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Goldwater Institute Urges Supreme Court to Respect Second ... - The Creative Corner - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- I carry a firearm daily. Second Amendment rights are not absolute. - Daily Kos - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Free Lecture - To Trust the People with Arms: The Supreme Court ... - Buckeye Firearms Association - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Federal Judge Enjoins Several Maryland Restrictions on Carrying ... - Reason - October 7th, 2023 [October 7th, 2023]
- Guest columnist Lee Armstrong: Taking 2nd Amendment to extremes - GazetteNET - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Analysis: ACLU Warns of Government Overreach in Second ... - The Reload - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Madison's Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, by ... - Shepherd Express - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Massachusetts Judge Rules Law Against Carrying Guns Across ... - The Reload - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- It's Not Hard to Tell Good Guy From Bad Guy, as 12 More Defensive ... - Heritage.org - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- NRA-ILA Files Friend of the Court Brief Urging the Eighth Circuit to ... - NRA ILA - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Panhandling ordinance amendments pass first Council vote - Mountain Xpress - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Florida's New Concealed Carry Law: What You Need to Know - Hernando Sun - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Why did PragerU lie about being approved in Texas schools? - Reckon - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- No longer a cold war, the Tennessee House and Senate are not ... - News Channel 5 Nashville - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- What's News, Breaking: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 - Brooklyn Daily Eagle - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Sparse turnout for gun rights rally with Kyle Rittenhouse after Michigan gun reform laws signed Michigan Advance - Michigan Advance - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Tom Huckin: A misinterpretation of the Constitution leads to disastrous consequences - Salt Lake Tribune - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Debate on Second Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Sorry, Gov. Newsom, but Citizens Want to Use Guns to Defend ... - Heritage.org - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- D-Wave Quantum Inc. Enter into the Limited Waiver and Second Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement with PSPIB Unitas Investments II Inc -... - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Federal Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Uphold Texas Suppressor Law for ... - The Texan - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Governor's Council approves all 7 of Healey's pardon ... - WBUR News - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Jonah Goldberg: Why July is the cruelest month for GOP presidential ... - The Winchester Star - July 21st, 2023 [July 21st, 2023]
- Second Amendment Roundup: U.S. Seeking Cert on Prohibited Persons % - Reason - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- 2nd Amendment Quotes for Hot Topics - Everyday Power - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- ICYMI: Buffalo News Editorial: Gun Laws and a More Sensible ... - ny.gov - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Opinion | Prince William needs gun-free zones - The Washington Post - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Second Federal Judge Expands Block on Biden Pistol-Brace Ban as ... - The Reload - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Editorial: Mayor's order of support for trans citizens contrasts with the ... - St. Louis Post-Dispatch - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Simple answer isn't workable - Las Vegas Sun - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- DeSantis and the Road to the White House - The Media Line - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Should gun stores be allowed near schools? These parents are ... - Reckon - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Hawaii Agrees to Drop Baton Ban After Losing Court Fight - The Reload - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Demise of S.F. exaggerated. It's still a great city to visit - San Francisco Chronicle - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- ESAs consult to amend technical standards on the mapping of ... - ESMA - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- 'Not tools of self-defense': Ferguson makes case for Washington's ... - The Columbian - May 30th, 2023 [May 30th, 2023]
- Lawrence ODonnell Airs Old Clip of Republican Chief Justice Calling the Second Amendment a Fraud on the American Public - Mediaite - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- Marshall University Prof: Cops and Vets Earn Their Second Amendment Rights Through Months of Training - The Truth About Guns - February 28th, 2023 [February 28th, 2023]