Alex Jones & The Right of Speech: From Freedom To Bondage

Alex Jones Ordered To Pay $1 Billion For Saying Mean Things.

Yesterday, a jury ordered Alex Jones to pay almost $1 billion in damages to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims’ relatives and an FBI agent, who claimed the journalist turned their loss and trauma into years of torment by promoting the viewpoint that the attack was a hoax.

It is thought by some that the startling $965 million compensatory damages verdict might increase with the addition of punitive damages.

In August, a jury in Texas awarded nearly $50 million in compensatory and punitive damages to the parents of a murdered first grader who sued Jones there.

In Texas, a third suit is pending.

We are told that a notable component of this episode is supposed abuse at the hands of some of Jones’ audience, some of whom, among other things, hurled abusive comments to the victims’ relatives on social media.

Central to Jones’ ongoing persecution is the claim that Infowars, Jones’ media organization, has profited from knowingly spreading misinformation about mass killings.

In response to such pretensions, Jones has maintained that the trial has been a conspiracy put forward by Democrats and the media to silence him and put him out of business.

Naturally, Jones is not alone in contending that these events amount to little more than the constricting of Americans’ right to free speech.

One plaintiff, William Sherlach, said that the verdict “shows that the internet is not the wild, wild West, and that your actions have consequences,” adding that “people like Alex Jones will have to rethink what they say.”

Norm Pattis, Jones’ lawyer, remarked that, “Today is a very, very, very dark day for freedom of speech.”

The fact that Jones has apologized time and time again for his oral missteps appears to have done little to appease the mob.

Meantime, the striking irony in those condemning Alex Jones’ use of so-called “hate-speech” is that some of them appear to hateful in their treatment of Jones as a fellow human.

I do not think it goes too far to say that Jones’ legal woes for his thought crimes might persist in perpetuity, not unlike the January 6 defendants, some of whom have been incarcerated for unnatural periods of time absent of a speedy trial or conviction.

“We are going to chase Alex Jones to the end of the earth,” proclaimed Joshua Koskoff, an attorney for the families of several Sandy Hook victims, in an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Koskoff called the verdict “very just and sound and reasonable.”

Indeed, it appears that Jones’ personal opinions have been so damaging that no less a punishment than being broke for the rest of his life will be appropriate.

Some go as far as to say that there has been more hatred, shame and opposition assigned to Alex Jones than the person who actually pulled the trigger and killed the children at Sandy Hook.

One might wonder how many of those denouncing Jones’ words can even recall the name of the Sandy Hook shooter without the help of Google’s search engine.

In contrast, some have pointed out that the largest fine paid by a banking executive responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis was $67.5 million.

Still, there is an important question that is still in need of asking.

Even if the Sandy Hook shooting was not a hoax, something which Jones has long conceded, do people have the right to have their opinions and to vocalize them as they see fit?

Of course, I am not advocating for lying.

But old-timers might recall times past in America where people were free to say something that wasn’t true.

Can Biden’s cognitive health be publicly contemplated? Can one publicly resist the mindset of forcibly vaccinating someone against their will? Can dissenting against providing pornography to students in public schools be permitted? Can saying something that some person or organization chooses to characterize as so-called “hate-speech” or “misinformation” or “disinformation” be tolerated? Can a person be allowed to dissent about what transpired during the Sandy Hook shooting?

Naturally, those paying mind to these novel legal occurrences with a careful eye will already know the answer.

One of the many to question the verdict was British pop star M.I.A., who tweeted that, “If Alex Jones pays for lying shouldn’t every celebrity pushing vaccines pay too?” She would also tweet, “Alex jones lying and Pfizer lying both trending. One with penalty other without. If you have no critical thinking faculty, this is about as crazy as we should get before a nuclear war wipe out the human race.”

On Twitter, congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene said, “No matter what you think of Alex Jones all he did was speak words. He was not the one who pulled the trigger. Were his words wrong and did he apologize? Yes. That’s what freedom of speech is. Freedom to speak words. Political persecution must end.”

Revolver News founder Darren Beattie would put things this way: “Free speech isn't free... costs 1 billion dollars.”

Turning Point USA founder and president Charlie Kirk said that, “This isn't about calculating real damages from Alex Jones. This is about sending a message: If you upset the Regime, they will destroy you, completely and utterly, forever.” He added, in another tweet, “If Alex Jones owes a billion dollars for saying mean things on his show, how much should the propagandists at CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, and The New York Times pay to all the Americans they pressured to inject their kids saying it would prevent transmission to grandma?”

Attorney and political commentator Mike Cernovich detailed that, “Alex Jones killed no one. He apologized for his erroneous reports, of which there weren’t many. Nevertheless in a trial where he wasn’t allowed to defend himself on free speech grounds, he’s now being ordered to pay hundreds-of-millions of dollars. Stalin’s ghost has returned.”

Likewise, Human Events editor Jack Posobiec asked, “How much money can we get awarded for suing every media figure who said the vaccine would stop transmission?”

JD Rucker, editor-in-chief of The Liberty Daily, observed that, “The Alex Jones verdict is about quashing dissent. That's why they're still holding J6 political prisoners. It's why they label concerned parents as domestic terrorists. It's why they claim any dissent against the narrative or agenda is ‘misinformation.’"

In another tweet, he added that, “It's not about left versus right. Even a leftist who hates Alex Jones for his message or ideology should be fair-minded enough to admit that there are far worse crimes than what he did. If you can't see a billion dollar penalty as unjust, then you are part of the problem.”

As put by author Michael Malice, “By way of comparison, OJ Simpson was ordered to pay $33.5 million to the families for the wrongful deaths of his two victims.”

Viva Frei, YouTuber and lawyer, tweeted that, “Just a $1,000,000,000 award in damages against Alex Jones after a Kafka-esque show trial. If this doesn’t get overturned on appeal, there is no hope left for the so-called ‘justice’ system.”

Comedian Tim Young asked, “They fined Alex Jones $965 million... what did the jury think he was... Pfizer?”

The point is that the sun seems to be setting on the once cherished American and human birthright of being free to say what one wishes, outside of calls to violence and the much maligned yelling of “fire!” in a crowded theater.

Nonetheless, some are expecting that the verdict and decision will soon be reversed.

If that does come to pass, one can reasonably expect the press to give less publicity to those newly developed circumstances.

And should readers dare decide to exercise their rapidly vanishing freedom of speech in our current culture, it may be a wise thing for them, or so the thinking goes, to think twice about what viewpoints are well to be uttered.

Or, if all else, make sure their pocketbook is in order.