By JIM VERTUNO
August 1, 2022
1 of 12
1 of 12
Scarlett Lewis, mother of 6-year-old Sandy Hook shooting victim Jesse Lewis, testifies against Alex Jones Tuesday Aug. 2, 2022, at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin. Jones has been found to have defamed the parents of a Sandy Hook student for calling the attack a hoax. (Briana Sanchez/Austin American-Statesman via AP, Pool)
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Fighting back tears and finally given the chance to confront conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, the parents of a 6-year-old killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting described being put through a “living hell” of death threats, harassment and ongoing trauma over the last decade caused by Jones using his media platforms to push claims that it was all a hoax.
The parents led a day of charged testimony that included the judge scolding the bombastic Jones for not being truthful with some of what he said under oath.
Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose son Jesse was killed at Sandy Hook, took the witness stand Tuesday on the final day of testimony in the two-week defamation damages trial against Jones and his media company Free Speech Systems. They are seeking at least $150 million in damages.
In a gripping exchange, Lewis spoke directly to Jones, who was sitting about 10 feet away. Earlier that day, Jones was on his broadcast program telling his audience that Heslin is “slow” and being manipulated by bad people.
“I am a mother first and foremost and I know you are a father. My son existed,” Lewis said to Jones. “I am not deep state... I know you know that... And yet you’re going to leave this courthouse and say it again on your show.”
At one point, Lewis asked Jones: “Do you think I’m an actor?”
“No, I don’t think you’re an actor,” Jones responded before the judge admonished him to be quiet until called to testify.
Lewis continued trying to impress on Jones that the Sandy Hook shooting and trauma inflicted in the decade since then were real.
“It seems so incredible to me that we have to do this — that we have to implore you, to punish you — to get you to stop lying,” Lewis said. “I am so glad this day is here. I’m actually relieved. And grateful... that I got to say all this to you.”
Jones visibly shook his head several times while Scarlett Lewis was addressing him.
Heslin and Lewis are among several Sandy Hook families who have filed several lawsuits alleging that Sandy Hook hoax claims pushed by Jones have led to years of abuse by Jones and his followers.
Heslin and Lewis both said they fear for their lives and have been confronted by strangers at home and on the street. Heslin said his home and car have been shot at. The jury heard a death threat sent via telephone message to another Sandy Hook family.
“I can’t even describe the last nine and a half years, the living hell that I and others have had to endure because of the recklessness and negligence of Alex Jones,” Heslin said.
Scarlett Lewis also described threatening emails that seemed to have uncovered deep details of her personal life.
“It’s fear for your life,” Scarlett Lewis said. “You don’t know what they were going to do.”
Heslin said he didn’t know if the Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy theory originated with Jones, but it was Jones who “lit the match and started the fire” with an online platform and broadcast that reached millions worldwide.
“What was said about me and Sandy Hook itself resonates around the world,” Heslin said. “As time went on, I truly realized how dangerous it was.”
Jones skipped Heslin’s morning testimony while he was on his show — a move Heslin dismissed as “cowardly” — but arrived in the courtroom for part of Scarlett Lewis’ testimony. He was accompanied by several private security guards.
“Today is very important to me and it’s been a long time coming... to face Alex Jones for what he said and did to me. To restore the honor and legacy of my son,” Heslin said when Jones wasn’t there.
Heslin told the jury about holding his son with a bullet hole through his head, even describing the extent of the damage to his son’s body. A key segment of the case is a 2017 Infowars broadcast that said Heslin didn’t hold his son.
The jury was shown a school picture of a smiling Jesse taken two weeks before he was killed. The parents didn’t receive the photo until after the shooting. They described how Jesse was known for telling classmates to “run!” which likely saved lives.
An apology from Jones wouldn’t be good enough, the parents said.
“Alex started this fight,” Heslin said, “and I’ll finish this fight.”
Jones later took the stand himself, initially being combative with the judge, who had asked him to answer his own attorney’s question. Jones testified he had long wanted to apologize to the plaintiffs.
“I never intentionally tried to hurt you. I never said your name until this came to court,” Jones said. “The internet had questions, I had questions.”
Later, the judge sent the jury out of the room and strongly scolded Jones for telling the jury he complied with pretrial evidence gathering even though he didn’t, and that he is bankrupt, which has not been determined. Plaintiff’s attorneys were furious about Jones mentioning he is bankrupt, which they worry will taint a jury decision about damages.
“This is not your show,” Judge Maya Guerra Gamble told Jones. “Your beliefs do not make something true. You are under oath.”
Last September, Guerra admonished Jones in her default judgment over his failure to turn over documents requested by the Sandy Hook families. A court in Connecticut issued a similar default judgment against Jones for the same reasons in a separate lawsuit brought by other Sandy Hook parents.
Heslin and Lewis suffer from a form of post-traumatic stress disorder that comes from constant trauma, similar to that endured by soldiers in war zones or child abuse victims, a forensic psychologist who studied their cases and met with them testified Monday.
Jones has portrayed the lawsuit against him as an attack on his First Amendment rights.
At stake in the trial is how much Jones will pay. The parents have asked the jury to award $150 million in compensation for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury will then consider whether Jones and his company will pay punitive damages.
The trial is just one of several Jones faces.
Courts in Texas and Connecticut have already found Jones liable for defamation for his portrayal of the Sandy Hook massacre as a hoax. In both states, judges issued default judgements against Jones without trials because he failed to respond to court orders and turn over documents.
Jones has already tried to protect Free Speech Systems financially. The company filed for federal bankruptcy protection last week. Sandy Hook families have separately sued Jones over his financial claims, arguing that the company is trying to protect millions owned by Jones and his family through shell entities.
___
Associated Press writer Paul J. Weber contributed to this report.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Fighting back tears and finally given the chance to confront conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, the parents of a 6-year-old killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting described being put through a “living hell” of death threats, harassment and ongoing trauma over the last decade caused by Jones using his media platforms to push claims that it was all a hoax.
The parents led a day of charged testimony that included the judge scolding the bombastic Jones for not being truthful with some of what he said under oath.
Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose son Jesse was killed at Sandy Hook, took the witness stand Tuesday on the final day of testimony in the two-week defamation damages trial against Jones and his media company Free Speech Systems. They are seeking at least $150 million in damages.
In a gripping exchange, Lewis spoke directly to Jones, who was sitting about 10 feet away. Earlier that day, Jones was on his broadcast program telling his audience that Heslin is “slow” and being manipulated by bad people.
“I am a mother first and foremost and I know you are a father. My son existed,” Lewis said to Jones. “I am not deep state... I know you know that... And yet you’re going to leave this courthouse and say it again on your show.”
At one point, Lewis asked Jones: “Do you think I’m an actor?”
“No, I don’t think you’re an actor,” Jones responded before the judge admonished him to be quiet until called to testify.
Lewis continued trying to impress on Jones that the Sandy Hook shooting and trauma inflicted in the decade since then were real.
“It seems so incredible to me that we have to do this — that we have to implore you, to punish you — to get you to stop lying,” Lewis said. “I am so glad this day is here. I’m actually relieved. And grateful... that I got to say all this to you.”
Jones visibly shook his head several times while Scarlett Lewis was addressing him.
Heslin and Lewis are among several Sandy Hook families who have filed several lawsuits alleging that Sandy Hook hoax claims pushed by Jones have led to years of abuse by Jones and his followers.
Heslin and Lewis both said they fear for their lives and have been confronted by strangers at home and on the street. Heslin said his home and car have been shot at. The jury heard a death threat sent via telephone message to another Sandy Hook family.
“I can’t even describe the last nine and a half years, the living hell that I and others have had to endure because of the recklessness and negligence of Alex Jones,” Heslin said.
Scarlett Lewis also described threatening emails that seemed to have uncovered deep details of her personal life.
“It’s fear for your life,” Scarlett Lewis said. “You don’t know what they were going to do.”
Heslin said he didn’t know if the Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy theory originated with Jones, but it was Jones who “lit the match and started the fire” with an online platform and broadcast that reached millions worldwide.
“What was said about me and Sandy Hook itself resonates around the world,” Heslin said. “As time went on, I truly realized how dangerous it was.”
Jones skipped Heslin’s morning testimony while he was on his show — a move Heslin dismissed as “cowardly” — but arrived in the courtroom for part of Scarlett Lewis’ testimony. He was accompanied by several private security guards.
“Today is very important to me and it’s been a long time coming... to face Alex Jones for what he said and did to me. To restore the honor and legacy of my son,” Heslin said when Jones wasn’t there.
Heslin told the jury about holding his son with a bullet hole through his head, even describing the extent of the damage to his son’s body. A key segment of the case is a 2017 Infowars broadcast that said Heslin didn’t hold his son.
The jury was shown a school picture of a smiling Jesse taken two weeks before he was killed. The parents didn’t receive the photo until after the shooting. They described how Jesse was known for telling classmates to “run!” which likely saved lives.
An apology from Jones wouldn’t be good enough, the parents said.
“Alex started this fight,” Heslin said, “and I’ll finish this fight.”
Jones later took the stand himself, initially being combative with the judge, who had asked him to answer his own attorney’s question. Jones testified he had long wanted to apologize to the plaintiffs.
“I never intentionally tried to hurt you. I never said your name until this came to court,” Jones said. “The internet had questions, I had questions.”
Later, the judge sent the jury out of the room and strongly scolded Jones for telling the jury he complied with pretrial evidence gathering even though he didn’t, and that he is bankrupt, which has not been determined. Plaintiff’s attorneys were furious about Jones mentioning he is bankrupt, which they worry will taint a jury decision about damages.
“This is not your show,” Judge Maya Guerra Gamble told Jones. “Your beliefs do not make something true. You are under oath.”
Last September, Guerra admonished Jones in her default judgment over his failure to turn over documents requested by the Sandy Hook families. A court in Connecticut issued a similar default judgment against Jones for the same reasons in a separate lawsuit brought by other Sandy Hook parents.
Heslin and Lewis suffer from a form of post-traumatic stress disorder that comes from constant trauma, similar to that endured by soldiers in war zones or child abuse victims, a forensic psychologist who studied their cases and met with them testified Monday.
Jones has portrayed the lawsuit against him as an attack on his First Amendment rights.
At stake in the trial is how much Jones will pay. The parents have asked the jury to award $150 million in compensation for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury will then consider whether Jones and his company will pay punitive damages.
The trial is just one of several Jones faces.
Courts in Texas and Connecticut have already found Jones liable for defamation for his portrayal of the Sandy Hook massacre as a hoax. In both states, judges issued default judgements against Jones without trials because he failed to respond to court orders and turn over documents.
Jones has already tried to protect Free Speech Systems financially. The company filed for federal bankruptcy protection last week. Sandy Hook families have separately sued Jones over his financial claims, arguing that the company is trying to protect millions owned by Jones and his family through shell entities.
___
Associated Press writer Paul J. Weber contributed to this report.
Psychiatrist says Sandy Hook parents fear for their lives
By JIM VERTUNO
EXPLAINER: Is Alex Jones’ trial about free speech rights?
By JIM VERTUNO
August 1, 2022
Alex Jones' lawyer Andino Reynal gives his opening statement to the jury, Tuesday, July 26, 2022, at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin, Texas.
Alex Jones' lawyer Andino Reynal gives his opening statement to the jury, Tuesday, July 26, 2022, at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin, Texas.
(Briana Sanchez/Austin American-Statesman via AP, Pool)
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The parents of a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim live with a complex form of post-traumatic stress disorder and a constant fear that followers of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones will kill them, a psychiatrist testified Monday at Jones’ defamation trial.
Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis, have sued Jones and his media company Free Speech Systems over the harassment and threats they and other parents say they’ve endured for years while Jones and his Infowars website claimed the 2012 attack that killed 20 first-graders and six school staffers was a hoax or faked.
“The overwhelming cause of their pain is what Jones is doing,” said Roy Lubit, a forensic psychiatrist hired by the plaintiffs to review the trauma faced by the parents.
The post-traumatic stress disorder the parents suffer from is not based on a single event, but on constant trauma, and is similar to that endured by soldiers in war zones or child abuse victims, Lubit said.
Heslin and Scarlett Lewis are consumed not just with the memory of their son’s horrific death, but the denials and attacks on them and their son’s legacy they’ve endured for years. He noted the security the parents hired to protect them at the two-week trial.
Lubit said Heslin has had guns fired at his home and has been accosted on the street. Scarlett Lewis told Lubit that she installed sophisticated surveillance equipment at her home and sleeps with a gun, a knife and pepper spray at her bedside.
Jones’ attorney Andino Reynal tried to attack the credibility of Lubit’s testimony and whether he is biased in favor of the parents, who are seeking at least $150 million in the case. He noted that Lubit briefly ran for Congress in Connecticut as a Democrat in 2018.
“You don’t like Alex Jones, do you?” Reynal asked.
“I don’t like what he does,” Lubit answered.
Mark Bankston, attorney for Heslin and Lewis, said the family has gone into isolation under a “large and professional security team” because of an incident that happened since the trial began. He did not provide details of what happened.
“They are in isolation and they are going to stay that way, and all I can tell you is they are terrified right now,” Bankston said.
Heslin and Lewis have have attended almost all of the trial since opening statements on July 26, and first arrived at the courthouse with a small security detail. They left the courtroom together Monday morning.
Michael Crouch, a Connecticut psychologist who has treated Heslin and Stewart, said the lies about a Sandy Hook hoax stole precious memories of their son.
“If Alex Jones, if he was spreading the belief, the lies, that Neil’s an actor, that means Jesse doesn’t exist. Which is crazy,” Crouch said. “You’re taking away what they know of their son, what they want to hold on to.”
Heslin and Lewis are expected to testify Tuesday as the final witnesses for their side.
Reynal said Jones will testify Tuesday in his own defense.
Monday’s testimony also included videotaped depositions from an Infowars reporter who said that at the website, there was no fact-checking, source-vetting, verifying information through second sources or training about journalistic standards.
Jones, who has attended only some of the trial, was not in the courtroom for Monday morning’s testimony.
The trial is in Texas because Jones lives in Austin and his media company, Free Speech Systems, is based there. The company filed for federal bankruptcy protection, though defense attorneys say that should not disrupt the trial, which is in its second week.
Free Speech Systems, which operates Infowars, listed $14.3 million in assets. That includes almost $1.16 million in cash and almost $1.6 million in property and equipment, as of May 31.
It also listed $79 million in liabilities, with a $54 million debt owed to PQPR Holdings.
Sandy Hook families have separately sued Jones over the $54 million debt listing, arguing that PQBR is a Nevada-registered company owned by Jones and his family through shell entities. That lawsuit in state court is still pending.
Courts in Texas and Connecticut have already found Jones liable for defamation for his portrayal of the Sandy Hook massacre as a hoax involving actors aimed at increasing gun control. In both states, judges issued default judgements against Jones without trials because he failed to respond to court orders and turn over documents.
___
For more of the AP’s coverage of school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The parents of a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim live with a complex form of post-traumatic stress disorder and a constant fear that followers of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones will kill them, a psychiatrist testified Monday at Jones’ defamation trial.
Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis, have sued Jones and his media company Free Speech Systems over the harassment and threats they and other parents say they’ve endured for years while Jones and his Infowars website claimed the 2012 attack that killed 20 first-graders and six school staffers was a hoax or faked.
“The overwhelming cause of their pain is what Jones is doing,” said Roy Lubit, a forensic psychiatrist hired by the plaintiffs to review the trauma faced by the parents.
The post-traumatic stress disorder the parents suffer from is not based on a single event, but on constant trauma, and is similar to that endured by soldiers in war zones or child abuse victims, Lubit said.
Heslin and Scarlett Lewis are consumed not just with the memory of their son’s horrific death, but the denials and attacks on them and their son’s legacy they’ve endured for years. He noted the security the parents hired to protect them at the two-week trial.
Lubit said Heslin has had guns fired at his home and has been accosted on the street. Scarlett Lewis told Lubit that she installed sophisticated surveillance equipment at her home and sleeps with a gun, a knife and pepper spray at her bedside.
Jones’ attorney Andino Reynal tried to attack the credibility of Lubit’s testimony and whether he is biased in favor of the parents, who are seeking at least $150 million in the case. He noted that Lubit briefly ran for Congress in Connecticut as a Democrat in 2018.
“You don’t like Alex Jones, do you?” Reynal asked.
“I don’t like what he does,” Lubit answered.
Mark Bankston, attorney for Heslin and Lewis, said the family has gone into isolation under a “large and professional security team” because of an incident that happened since the trial began. He did not provide details of what happened.
“They are in isolation and they are going to stay that way, and all I can tell you is they are terrified right now,” Bankston said.
Heslin and Lewis have have attended almost all of the trial since opening statements on July 26, and first arrived at the courthouse with a small security detail. They left the courtroom together Monday morning.
Michael Crouch, a Connecticut psychologist who has treated Heslin and Stewart, said the lies about a Sandy Hook hoax stole precious memories of their son.
“If Alex Jones, if he was spreading the belief, the lies, that Neil’s an actor, that means Jesse doesn’t exist. Which is crazy,” Crouch said. “You’re taking away what they know of their son, what they want to hold on to.”
Heslin and Lewis are expected to testify Tuesday as the final witnesses for their side.
Reynal said Jones will testify Tuesday in his own defense.
Monday’s testimony also included videotaped depositions from an Infowars reporter who said that at the website, there was no fact-checking, source-vetting, verifying information through second sources or training about journalistic standards.
Jones, who has attended only some of the trial, was not in the courtroom for Monday morning’s testimony.
The trial is in Texas because Jones lives in Austin and his media company, Free Speech Systems, is based there. The company filed for federal bankruptcy protection, though defense attorneys say that should not disrupt the trial, which is in its second week.
Free Speech Systems, which operates Infowars, listed $14.3 million in assets. That includes almost $1.16 million in cash and almost $1.6 million in property and equipment, as of May 31.
It also listed $79 million in liabilities, with a $54 million debt owed to PQPR Holdings.
Sandy Hook families have separately sued Jones over the $54 million debt listing, arguing that PQBR is a Nevada-registered company owned by Jones and his family through shell entities. That lawsuit in state court is still pending.
Courts in Texas and Connecticut have already found Jones liable for defamation for his portrayal of the Sandy Hook massacre as a hoax involving actors aimed at increasing gun control. In both states, judges issued default judgements against Jones without trials because he failed to respond to court orders and turn over documents.
___
For more of the AP’s coverage of school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings
EXPLAINER: Is Alex Jones’ trial about free speech rights?
By MICHAEL TARM
yesterday
Alex Jones, left, arrives at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin, Texas, on July 26, 2022, with a piece of tape over his mouth that reads "Save the 1st." He shook hands with his lawyer, Andino Reynal. Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause.
Alex Jones, left, arrives at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin, Texas, on July 26, 2022, with a piece of tape over his mouth that reads "Save the 1st." He shook hands with his lawyer, Andino Reynal. Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause.
(Briana Sanchez/Austin American-Statesman via AP, Pool, File)
CHICAGO (AP) — Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones arrived at a Texas courthouse for his defamation trial for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack a hoax with the words “Save the 1st” scrawled on tape covering his mouth.
Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause.
The ongoing trial in Austin, which is where Jones’ far-right Infowars website and its parent company are based, stems from a 2018 lawsuit brought by Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the 2012 attack along with 19 other first-graders and six educators.
Jones is expected to testify Tuesday in his own defense.
Here’s a look at how the case relates to the First Amendment:
ARE ALL DEFAMATION LAWSUITS FIRST AMENDMENT CASES?
They are. Defamation laws evolved through decades of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on what is and isn’t protected speech.
Typically, the first question jurors answer at trials is whether the speech qualifies as unprotected defamation. If it does, they address the question of damages.
Jones’ trial largely skipped the first question and went straight to the second. From the start, it focused not on whether Jones must pay damages, but how much.
WHY IS HIS TRIAL DIFFERENT?
Jones seemed to sabotage his own chance to fully argue that his speech was protected by not complying with orders to hand over critical evidence, such as emails, which the parents hoped would prove he knew all along that his statements were false.
That led exasperated Judge Maya Guerra Gamble to enter a rare default judgment, declaring the parents winners before the trial even began.
Judges in other lawsuits against Jones have issued similar rulings.
“I don’t know why they didn’t cooperate,” said Stephen D. Solomon, a founding editor of New York University’s First Amendment Watch. “It is just really peculiar. ... It’s so odd to not even give yourself the chance to defend yourself.”
It might suggest Jones knew certain evidence would doom his defense.
“It is reasonable to presume that (Jones) and his team did not think they had a viable defense ... or they would have complied,” said Barry Covert, a Buffalo, New York, First Amendment lawyer.
HAVE BOTH SIDES REFERRED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Yes. During opening statements last week, plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Bankston told jurors it doesn’t protect defamatory speech.
“Speech is free,” he said, “but lies you have to pay for.”
Jones’ lawyer Andino Reynal said the case is crucial to free speech.
And Jones made similar arguments in a deposition.
“If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it might hurt somebody’s feelings, we are not in America anymore,” he said.
Jones, who had said actors staged the shooting as a pretext to strengthen gun control, later acknowledged it occurred.
WHAT ARE KEY ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION?
Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly — typically via the media — and purporting that it’s true. An opinion can’t be defamatory. The statement also must have done actual damage to someone’s reputation.
The parents suing Jones say his lies about their child’s death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones’ followers.
IS IT EASIER FOR NON-PUBLIC FIGURES TO PROVE DEFAMATION?
Yes. They must merely show a false statement was made carelessly.
In New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court said the bar for public figures must be higher because scrutiny of them is so vital to democracy. They must prove “actual malice,” that a false statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
ARE THE PARENTS PUBLIC FIGURES?
Their lawyers say they clearly aren’t in the category of politicians or celebrities who stepped voluntarily into the public arena.
The high court, however, has said those who temporarily enter public debates can become temporary public figures.
Jones argues that Heslin did just that, entering the national debate over guns by advocating for tougher gun laws on TV and before Congress.
WHAT DAMAGES ARE BEING SOUGHT?
The plaintiffs are seeking $150 million for emotional distress, as well as reputational and punitive damages.
Reynal told jurors that his client has been punished enough, losing millions of dollars being booted off major social media platforms.
He asked them to award the plaintiffs $1.
CAN FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES INFLUENCE THE TRIAL’S OUTCOME?
Indirectly, yes.
Jones can’t argue that he’s not liable for damages on the grounds that his speech was protected. The judge already ruled he is liable. But as a way to limit damages, his lawyers can argue that his speech was protected.
“Jurors could say (Jones’ defamatory statements) is actually something we don’t want to punish very hard,” said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at the Maryland-based Freedom Forum.
COULD JONES HAVE WON IF THE TRIAL WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
He could have contended that his statements were hyperbolic opinion — that wild, non-factual exaggeration is his schtick.
But it would have been tough to persuade jurors that he was merely riffing and opining.
“It was a verifiable fact the massacre occurred at Sandy Hook,” said Solomon. “That’s not opinion. It is a fact.” Even if the parents were deemed public figures, imposing the higher standard, “I think Alex Jones would still lose,” he said.
But Covert said defamation is always a challenge to prove.
“I wouldn’t discount the possibility Jones could have prevailed,” he said. “Trying to speculate what a jury would find is always a fool’s errand.”
MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT BE SYMPATHETIC TO ANY JONES APPEAL?
Conservatives and liberal justices have found that some deeply offensive speech is protected.
In 2011, the high court voted 8-to-1 to overturn a verdict against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for picketing military funerals with signs declaring that God hates the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality.
“As a Nation we have chosen ... to protect even hurtful speech ... to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” the ruling said.
But it and the Jones case have key differences.
“The were both extreme, outrageous, shocking, deplorable. But the Westboro Baptist Church was also manifestly political and not defamatory ... not about any one person’s reputation” Goldberg said.
He added: “I’d be shocked if (Jones’) case ever ended up in the Supreme Court.”
___
For more of the AP’s coverage of school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings
CHICAGO (AP) — Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones arrived at a Texas courthouse for his defamation trial for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack a hoax with the words “Save the 1st” scrawled on tape covering his mouth.
Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause.
The ongoing trial in Austin, which is where Jones’ far-right Infowars website and its parent company are based, stems from a 2018 lawsuit brought by Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the 2012 attack along with 19 other first-graders and six educators.
Jones is expected to testify Tuesday in his own defense.
Here’s a look at how the case relates to the First Amendment:
ARE ALL DEFAMATION LAWSUITS FIRST AMENDMENT CASES?
They are. Defamation laws evolved through decades of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on what is and isn’t protected speech.
Typically, the first question jurors answer at trials is whether the speech qualifies as unprotected defamation. If it does, they address the question of damages.
Jones’ trial largely skipped the first question and went straight to the second. From the start, it focused not on whether Jones must pay damages, but how much.
WHY IS HIS TRIAL DIFFERENT?
Jones seemed to sabotage his own chance to fully argue that his speech was protected by not complying with orders to hand over critical evidence, such as emails, which the parents hoped would prove he knew all along that his statements were false.
That led exasperated Judge Maya Guerra Gamble to enter a rare default judgment, declaring the parents winners before the trial even began.
Judges in other lawsuits against Jones have issued similar rulings.
“I don’t know why they didn’t cooperate,” said Stephen D. Solomon, a founding editor of New York University’s First Amendment Watch. “It is just really peculiar. ... It’s so odd to not even give yourself the chance to defend yourself.”
It might suggest Jones knew certain evidence would doom his defense.
“It is reasonable to presume that (Jones) and his team did not think they had a viable defense ... or they would have complied,” said Barry Covert, a Buffalo, New York, First Amendment lawyer.
HAVE BOTH SIDES REFERRED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Yes. During opening statements last week, plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Bankston told jurors it doesn’t protect defamatory speech.
“Speech is free,” he said, “but lies you have to pay for.”
Jones’ lawyer Andino Reynal said the case is crucial to free speech.
And Jones made similar arguments in a deposition.
“If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it might hurt somebody’s feelings, we are not in America anymore,” he said.
Jones, who had said actors staged the shooting as a pretext to strengthen gun control, later acknowledged it occurred.
WHAT ARE KEY ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION?
Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly — typically via the media — and purporting that it’s true. An opinion can’t be defamatory. The statement also must have done actual damage to someone’s reputation.
The parents suing Jones say his lies about their child’s death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones’ followers.
IS IT EASIER FOR NON-PUBLIC FIGURES TO PROVE DEFAMATION?
Yes. They must merely show a false statement was made carelessly.
In New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court said the bar for public figures must be higher because scrutiny of them is so vital to democracy. They must prove “actual malice,” that a false statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
ARE THE PARENTS PUBLIC FIGURES?
Their lawyers say they clearly aren’t in the category of politicians or celebrities who stepped voluntarily into the public arena.
The high court, however, has said those who temporarily enter public debates can become temporary public figures.
Jones argues that Heslin did just that, entering the national debate over guns by advocating for tougher gun laws on TV and before Congress.
WHAT DAMAGES ARE BEING SOUGHT?
The plaintiffs are seeking $150 million for emotional distress, as well as reputational and punitive damages.
Reynal told jurors that his client has been punished enough, losing millions of dollars being booted off major social media platforms.
He asked them to award the plaintiffs $1.
CAN FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES INFLUENCE THE TRIAL’S OUTCOME?
Indirectly, yes.
Jones can’t argue that he’s not liable for damages on the grounds that his speech was protected. The judge already ruled he is liable. But as a way to limit damages, his lawyers can argue that his speech was protected.
“Jurors could say (Jones’ defamatory statements) is actually something we don’t want to punish very hard,” said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at the Maryland-based Freedom Forum.
COULD JONES HAVE WON IF THE TRIAL WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
He could have contended that his statements were hyperbolic opinion — that wild, non-factual exaggeration is his schtick.
But it would have been tough to persuade jurors that he was merely riffing and opining.
“It was a verifiable fact the massacre occurred at Sandy Hook,” said Solomon. “That’s not opinion. It is a fact.” Even if the parents were deemed public figures, imposing the higher standard, “I think Alex Jones would still lose,” he said.
But Covert said defamation is always a challenge to prove.
“I wouldn’t discount the possibility Jones could have prevailed,” he said. “Trying to speculate what a jury would find is always a fool’s errand.”
MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT BE SYMPATHETIC TO ANY JONES APPEAL?
Conservatives and liberal justices have found that some deeply offensive speech is protected.
In 2011, the high court voted 8-to-1 to overturn a verdict against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for picketing military funerals with signs declaring that God hates the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality.
“As a Nation we have chosen ... to protect even hurtful speech ... to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” the ruling said.
But it and the Jones case have key differences.
“The were both extreme, outrageous, shocking, deplorable. But the Westboro Baptist Church was also manifestly political and not defamatory ... not about any one person’s reputation” Goldberg said.
He added: “I’d be shocked if (Jones’) case ever ended up in the Supreme Court.”
___
For more of the AP’s coverage of school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings
SEE
No comments:
Post a Comment