Kazolias October 23, 2022 First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Justice, US

Alex Jones Verdict: Serious Attack on Free Speech

Socrates George Kazolias, Paris France: I know it is hard to accept but the $1 billion verdict against Alex Jones is a very serious attack on free speech. Yes, what he said in his Sandy Hook Massacre denial was untrue, hideous, and hurtful. But the First Amendment allows us to lie and hurt people’s feelings. What we are not allowed to do is slander and libel. (more on this below).

If saying something untrue were a crime, then every religion but my own should be condemned to pay huge reparations. And by God, if you are an atheist, sue us all. Even in France, which has very strict laws on what one can say publicly, does not have blasphemy legislation.

When Mia, a 17-year-old Lesbian influencer told some obnoxious, sexist and homophobic French Muslims to piss off and that their religion was “shit,” she received thousands of death threats and has been in hiding and under police protection ever since.

I have serious problems with Islam and if that hurts Muslim feelings, so what? I can express what I dislike and fear, or, at least, I should be able to. They may do the same to me and hurt my sensitivities:

“You believe a guy walked on water,” they may say.
“I know he did. I saw him do it,” I may answer.

Just so we are clear, I have no problem with Muslims on an individual, human, basis, but I allow myself to make certain civilizational conclusions. A society (Aztecs, Incas, for example) which lives through human sacrifice is not a civilization I can condone. Does that make me a racist? It is a question we should at least be legally allowed to have in public.

That Thing Called the 1st Amendment

This is protected free speech under the First Amendment just as much as denying the truth that a sick 20-year-old kid with an AR-15, murdered 26 people, 20 of them children six and seven years old, in 2012. Those who would like to limit our freedoms always latch on to the most “indefensible” as a pretext and get us to go along with it, only to find later that the boomerang came back to hit us.

So, lying and hurting people’s feelings is still protected speech in the US but the Sandy Hook decision puts all of that into jeopardy unless the Appeals Court overturns the decision on Constitutional grounds.

Racism, xenophobia, homophobia and so on, are opinions in the US protected as free speech while in many European countries (France, Germany, Austria) they are considered crimes punishable by prison and fines. Legislators have voted laws on ‘historical truths’ and acceptable speech. Is that really the way you want to go?

One example is French courts condemning people who called to boycott Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. The courts ruled it was hate speech and antisemitism, both of which are illegal. Fortunately, the European Court of Justice ruled it was free speech and ordered France to over-ride the decision.

My position on free speech is if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Your sensitivities do not over-ride my freedom to say what I think.

Libel & Slander are Another Animal

The US went very far in protecting free speech when SCOTUS ruled that public officials and public figures had to prove “Actual Malice” if reporters or commentators made a mistake and said or wrote a falsehood (The New York Times v. Sullivan 376 US 25).

Times Doctrine came out of police violence in Selma during Civil Rights marches

It becomes a bit more tricky when you are exposing a private person, even if what you say is true (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 US 323 and especially Firestone v. Time, Inc. 424 US 448).

But usually “truth” is a good defense in a libel or slander case except if you live in Great Britain which is the libel capital of the world where public officials and public figures floc, in order to sue those who expose them to public scrutiny.

The bottom line is Alex Jones has the right to be the worst person in the world and spew the greatest nonsense and we must defend his right to do so or face our own liberties being caged in. It is why Jewish lawyers in the ACLU defended Ku Klux Klan members and American Nazis.

If people like him have a following, it probably has more to do with the rejection of the censorship and propaganda role of the mainstream corporate media, than it does with what he has to say. But the Constitution also protects our right to be assholes.

NOTE: Please leave a comment (and a like if you agree). Share with friends.

5Comments

Add yours

1

James White on October 23, 2022 at 13:11

This and other recent cases highlight the fact that partisanship now owns the courts and by extension, justice in the U.S. Centuries of reason, logic and the highest standards of moral and ethical conduct have been swept away by those who seek to dominate the populace who disagree with their insane policies that govern all of us. Americans are now routinely incarcerated for thought crimes, while others can commit violent felonies with no consequences. It all depends now on party affiliation or victimhood status. Like bankruptcy, this came about gradually, then suddenly. A person can no longer speak freely in the U.S. Freedom of speech is dead in the U.S. asa well as Europe. Because controlling the thoughts of people has become a valuable commodity. Conversely, a newspaper like the New York Times, can print all manner of lies and destroy a person’s life and reputation with zero consequences. Any reporter can claim to report information from unnamed ‘sources’ without ever revealing that there is no actual ‘source’ other than the perpetrators of the lie.

LikeLike
2

Anonymous on October 23, 2022 at 16:50

You misunderstand the basis of the suit against Jones, and by doing so fall into the trap his warped defense. This was about defamation, which falls outside of free speech. Defamation involves making false statements of fact publicly and claiming they are true. The statement must have done damage to someone’s reputation. The parents of the children killed said his lies ruined their reputations and resulted in death threats against them by Jones’ followers. This trial was never about opinions based upon the right of free speech and the jury agreed.

LikeLike
3

Kazolias on October 23, 2022 at 17:39

By your logic, I can argue anything that hurts my feelings damages my reputation. I reject your argument. It is much too easy. Following your logic, nobody can say anything about anything for fear of hurting someone’s feelings who will claim damage to their reputation. It is the perfect argument of the cancel culture. You may go on claiming hurting your feelings is the same as ruining your reputation but I won’t follow you there because I know where that road leads.

LikeLike
4

T on October 25, 2022 at 17:36

I agree that this case will be used against all journalists and people who express ideas that go against the interests of the American empire. This is the end of reporting as we know it and from now on only war reporters need apply, staying in their offices and feeding off the wire services directly controlled by the thought police. We are far beyond 1984. The amount of the fine is obscene. I hate Alex Jones and all he stands for, but this is ludicrous.

LikeLike
5

Steven Yourke on October 25, 2022 at 22:22

I have read your post and basically I agree with you.

I think it’s very important to bear in mind that whether Jones actually defamed any of the plaintiffs was never actually determined by a jury at all. The trial court judge entered a default judgment against Jones for violating her order regarding producing certain documents requested by the plaintiffs. So he was held liable for defamation by default, basically deprived of his right to a jury trial on the issue of liability. It’s extraordinary. It raises questions in my mind regarding the fairness of the judge. It’s one thing fir a judge to punish a defendant in a civil case for violating a court order by imposing a fine, but to enter a default judgment against them is really extraordinary.

So did Alex Jones defame the parents of the murdered children? We do not know because that issue was never determined on the merits. No jury ever heard any testimony on that issue. No jury ever rendered a verdict on that issue. Instead, an irate judge determined liability by entering a default judgment against Jones as to liability for defamation. He was never even allowed to argue to the jury that his speech was protected by the First Amendment. I think it’s outrageous. The damages award was completely insane, way out of proportion to any harm that Jones may have caused to the plaintiffs. As to whether the plaintiffs were public figures or private citizens, it’s an open question.

Needless to say, I’m not a big fan of Alex Jones but I am a big fan of the First Amendment freedom of speech. Jones was the first one kicked off social media and that was obviously politically motivated. The US political establishment has tried to destroy Trump and Jones because it perceives them as threats to their power.

The First Amendment protects political speech more than any other kind of direct and Jones’ comments about Sandy Hook were certainly political in nature. He was claiming that the government had engineered a hoax in order to promote gun control laws. It’s whacky but it’s definitely speech about political issues and thus should receive the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.

When Rachel Maddow accused an American journalist of being “literally” a Russian agent, she was sued for defamation – and the court dismissed the suit on the grounds that she is an editorial commenter and that no reasonable person would have taken her comments “literally”! Maddow is the biggest huckster around and a much more dangerous media personality than Alex Jones, but when she defamed an American journalist by calling him a Russian agent, her case was dismissed by the court. Compare her case to that of Alex Jones. Her statements were much more clearly defamatory than anything Jones is accused of saying. But she got a pass from the courts. Why? Because she’s an apparatchik who works for the political establishment. She has a license to peddle any crazy conspiracy theory about Russia because she works for the globalist billionaires.

Bottom line: I do not think that Jones’ comments about Sandy Hook defamed the plaintiffs – I think those comments were probably protected under the First Amendment. But whether or not he defamed them, the damages awarded were insanely unreasonable and may have have a serious chilling effect on free expression. The First Amendment is under constant attack these days. The federal government is pressuring social media corporations to censor speech. The whole “woke” thing is about censoring speech that certain prooorvgjnd offensive.
Julian Assange is rotting in a British maximum security prison right now for having published material that embarrassed the US military and the CIA and the Clinton criminals. And all this is being led by the so-called “liberals”, the Democratic Party is leading the assault on our basic civil liberties.

Cheers.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 23, 2022, at 3:34 PM, S Y wrote:

Sure. I’ll look it over and get back to you shortly. I can tell you right now that I am absolutely appalled at the verdict. It makes a travesty of our legal system which is being used to destroy political dissidents like Alex Jones. It’s a symptom of the new totalitarianism. The persecution of Alex Jones is as fascistic and dangerous as the persecution of Julian Assange. The Democratic Party is now the standard bearer for global fascism.

LikeLike