EXPLANATION: Is Alex Jones’ trial about free speech? | Health, medicine and fitness

Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an attack on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and manifestly false that they fell well outside the constitutional clause-protected speech.

The pending lawsuit in Austin, which is home to Jones’ far-right Infowars website and its parent company, stems from a 2018 lawsuit filed by Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the 2012 attack together. with 19 other first-graders and six educators.

Jones took the stand Tuesday for his own defense.

Here’s a look at how the case compares to the First Amendment:

ARE ALL FIRST AMENDMENTS IN ALL JURISDICTIONS AS FIRST AMENDMENTS?

They are. Defamation laws have arisen from decades of U.S. Supreme Court rulings about what is and isn’t protected speech.

Usually, the first question jurors answer during trials is whether the speech qualifies as unprotected defamation. If so, they will address the issue of damage.

Jones’ trial largely skipped the first question and went straight to the second. From the start, it wasn’t a matter of whether Jones had to pay damages, but how much.

WHY IS ITS PROCESS DIFFERENT?

Jones seemed to be sabotaging his own chance to fully claim that his speech was protected by failing to comply with orders to hand over critical evidence, such as emails, which the parents hoped he would prove he knew all along that his statements. were false.

That prompted annoyed judge Maya Guerra Gamble to enter a rare default judgment and declare the parents the winner before the trial even began.

Judges in other lawsuits against Jones have made similar rulings.

“I don’t know why they weren’t cooperating,” said Stephen D. Solomon, one of the founders of New York University’s First Amendment Watch. “It’s just very special. … It’s so strange not even giving yourself a chance to defend yourself.”

It could indicate that Jones knew that certain evidence would destroy his defense.

“It’s reasonable to assume that (Jones) and his team didn’t think they had a viable defense … otherwise they would have obeyed,” said Barry Covert, a First Amendment attorney in Buffalo, New York.

HAVE BOTH SIDES REFERRED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Yes. During opening statements last week, plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Bankston told jurors that it does not protect defamatory statements.

“Speech is free,” he said, “but you have to pay for lies.”

Jones’ attorney Andino Reynal said the case is critical to free speech.

And Jones made similar arguments in a statement.

“If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it could hurt someone’s feelings, we’re not in America anymore,” he said.

Jones, who had said that actors staged the shooting as a pretext to strengthen gun control, later acknowledged that it happened.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF LUBRICATION?

Defamation requires someone to publicly make a false statement – usually through the media – claiming it to be true. An opinion cannot be defamatory. The statement must also have caused actual damage to someone’s reputation.

The parents who are suing Jones say his lies about their child’s death damaged their reputation and led to death threats from Jones’ followers.

IS IT EASIER FOR NON-PUBLIC FIGURES TO PROVE GREASE?

Yes. They only have to show that a false statement was made carelessly.

In the New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court said the bar should be raised for public figures because controlling them is so essential to democracy. They must prove “actual malice” that a false statement was made “with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.”

ARE THE PARENTS PUBLIC FIGURES?

Their lawyers say they clearly don’t fall into the category of politicians or celebrities who voluntarily enter the public arena.

However, the Supreme Court has said those who temporarily engage in public debates can become temporary public figures.

Jones argues that Heslin did just that, entering the national gun debate by advocating tougher gun laws on TV and before Congress.

WHAT DAMAGE IS LOOKED FOR?

The plaintiffs are seeking $150 million for emotional distress, as well as reputational damage and punitive damages.

Reynal told jurors that his client has been punished enough and has lost millions of dollars starting up major social media platforms.

He asked them to award the plaintiffs $1.

CAN FIRST CHANGE PROBLEMS INFLUENCE THE RESULT OF THE PROCESS?

Jones cannot argue that he is not liable for damages on the grounds that his speech was protected. The judge has already ruled that he is liable. But as a way of limiting the damage, his lawyers can argue that his speech was protected.

“Jury members might say that[Jones’defamatorystatements)areactuallysomethingwedon’twanttopunishveryharshly’saidKevinGoldbergaFirstAmendmentspecialistattheFreedomForuminMaryland

CAN JONES HAVE WIN WHEN THE PROCESS ALL RUN FOR FREE SPEECH?

He could have argued that his statements were a hyperbolic opinion—that wild, non-factual exaggeration is his point.

But it would have been difficult to convince the judges that he was just doing riffs and opinions.

“It was a verifiable fact that the massacre happened at Sandy Hook,” Solomon said. “That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.” Even if the parents were considered public figures and imposed 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 rule out the possibility that Jones could have triumphed,” he said. “Trying to speculate what a jury would find is always a fool’s errand.”

CAN THE TOP COURT BE SYMPATHETIC OF ANY APPEAL OF JONES?

Conservatives and liberal judges have found that some highly offensive speech is protected.

In 2011, the Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 to overturn a verdict against the Kansas Westboro Baptist Church for hosting military funerals with signs declaring that God hates the US for tolerating homosexuality.

“As a nation, we have chosen … to protect even hurtful expressions … to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” the ruling read.

But the Jones case and the Jones case have important differences.

“They were both extreme, outrageous, shocking and deplorable. But the Westboro Baptist Church was also clearly political and not defamatory…not about anyone’s reputation,” Goldberg said.

He added, “I would be shocked if (Jones’) case ever made it to the Supreme Court.”

For more coverage from the AP on school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings