On the Hook: Jury’s Hefty Defamation Award Against Alex Jones

by Hailey Martin, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 91

I. Introduction

Alex Jones, a famous right-wing conspiracist, has been ordered to pay nearly one billion dollars in damages in the second Sandy Hook defamation suit.¹ With the damages award, the decision could obliterate Jones’ already bankrupt Infowars media empire, which has been the platform Jones uses to promote many different conspiracy theories.² This article explores excessive damages and whether high damage amounts have any deterrent effect on defendants who know they will not be able, or willing, to pay it all. Section II provides background on Alex Jones, his Sandy Hook conspiracy, and the result of his lawsuit. Section III discusses whether criminal defamation may be more fitting for unremorseful defendants as opposed to paying damages. Section III also discusses the concerns criminal defamation poses considering it involves First Amendment rights, at the core of citizens’ freedom and liberty. Finally, Section IV concludes by arguing that the most justified sanction for unremorseful defendants, like Alex Jones, in defamation cases, may be criminal sanctions as opposed to civil, despite the potential harm afforded to First Amendment rights.

II. Background

Alex Jones fought legal battles in both Texas and Connecticut for publicly defaming the Sandy Hook shooting. The Connecticut verdict came two months after a Texas jury in a similar case ordered Jones to pay $49 million to two Sandy Hook parents.³ The Connecticut verdict applies not only to Jones, but Jones’ company, Free Speech Systems LLC, which owns Jones’ Infowars website.⁴ The plaintiffs in the Connecticut case included more than a dozen relatives of the children and six staff members involved in the December 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. Jones used his Infowars platform to lead millions of people to believe that the shooting never occurred and was fabricated to promote gun control measures.⁵ This resulted in Jones’ loyal following routinely harassing Sandy Hook families, calling them actors, and even claiming their children never existed.⁶ Families members also received death threats, rape threats, and abusive comments on social media.⁷ Jones repeatedly objected to discovery, has attacked the judicial process, and alleges there is a conspiracy against himself.⁸

Jones objected to the lawsuits, claiming they were a violation of his free speech rights.⁹ However, since Jones repeatedly failed to turn over evidence to the plaintiffs’ lawyers during the discovery process, the judges in both the Connecticut and Texas trials found him liable by default without trials.¹⁰ Jones’ lawyers requested a new trial arguing that the pretrial rulings resulted in an unfair trial and a “substantial miscarriage of justice.”¹¹ Additionally, they claimed the amount of compensatory damages awarded exceeds any type of rational relationship to the evidence offered at trial.¹²

While it is likely that Jones can void the payout in Texas due to statutory caps on damages, Connecticut does not place the same caps on damages. This raises the issue of whether Jones will be able to pay the $965 million award—which could reach $1 billion including attorney fees. InfoWars brought in revenue of $165 million between 2016 and 2018 according to the record, and Jones is personally worth between $135 million and $270 million.¹³

III. Discussion

Because Jones hopes bankruptcy can shield him from having to pay anything, this raises the issue of whether the damages amount does any harm to him. For someone like Jones, who believes he is shielded from paying damages and lacks remorse, criminal sanctions may be more appropriate. Defamation can give rise to criminal sanctions, including jail time, but these statutes only exist in a handful of states and are rarely enforced.¹⁴ Currently only thirteen states have criminal libel laws that are still enforced.¹⁵ Most states have overturned criminal defamation laws for infringing on free speech.¹⁶ Looking at other countries, like China, criminal speech laws exist to prohibit speech against the government,¹⁷ whereas the United States takes careful measures to protect speech, making criminal defamation laws not the most ideal. However, jail and prison time for defendants like Jones would likely have a more deterrent effect than damage awards. Jones claims that he will not have to pay the jury award to the plaintiffs and will evade it at all costs. Similarly, his lack of remorse is evidence of his unforgiving nature. However, had an applicable criminal defamation law existed, and Jones were to be prosecuted criminally, the purpose of the justice system may have been better upheld. If anything, criminal sanctions like jail time would decapitate Jones’ ability to spread any more false statements, which paying damages money cannot do. However, jail time serves no reward to the Sandy Hook families who suffered from Jones’ defaming statements. But, at what point does money lose its value? True, $965 million is an extremely high amount for the jury to award, however who’s to say adding another million does anything at all?

Defamation, libel, and slander are complex issues that involve First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. This country has long held, with pride, the right of anyone to speak and express themselves openly.¹⁸ Some might argue that Jones’ verdict does not ensure these rights. However, it is also argued by scholars that the post-truth era is not over, and the legal system worked exactly as it is supposed to in this highly unusual case.¹⁹ The United States typically allows many kinds of hateful speech to be spoken out mostly to promote the marketplace of ideas and expression.²⁰ Scholars at New York University argue that as far as defamation cases go, this is about as easy of a case as one can imagine.²¹ Typically, the main issue in a defamation claim is whether the defendant was at fault in publishing a false and defamatory factual statement about the plaintiff.²² However, here, Jones intentionally lied, for profit, and eventually admitted to his statements being false.²³ It is established that the First Amendment does not protect false statements of fact that cause significant damage to identifiable groups of people.²⁴ However, since this case never reached the merits, it is possible Jones could have successfully argued his case by arguing his statements were just rhetoric or opinion. In a similar case, Fox News successfully argued that no reasonable person could interpret statements made on Tucker Carlson’s program as statements of fact.²⁵ Jones could have raised a similar defense as well as justify his statements as just reporting the story to his audience. The battle in this specific case was won, but the longer war on deception and disinformation will continue.²⁶

IV. Conclusion

As the Supreme Court once said, “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.”²⁷ The jury’s award of $965 million in damages against Jones upholds this principle. However, given the hostile, unrepenting nature of Alex Jones, his expansive media collection and large public following, it can be difficult to see how justice is being served to the families of Sandy Hook students. Although First Amendment rights are the core of the Constitution and the United States prides itself on safeguarding these rights for all citizens, more states need to reconsider criminal sanctions for defamation.

Cover Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash

Hailey Martin

Hailey Martin grew up in Columbus, Ohio and is a Double Bearcat at UC, majoring in psychology for undergrad. Outside of Law Review, Hailey serves on SBA as the Social Media Chair, on Family and Juvenile Law Club Exec, and is an SSG Leader. Outside of law school, Hailey enjoying cycling and working at Cyclebar, running, and staying active.

References

1
Oliver Darcy, Jury Decides Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Should Pay Nearly $1 Billion in Damages to Sandy Hook Families for his Lies About the School Massacre, CNN Business (Oct. 13, 2022, 1:02 AM), https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/12/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook-damages.
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
71 No. 24 Bankr. Ct. Dec. News 2. Bankruptcy Court Decisions Weekly News & Comments, Westlaw.
5
Jennifer Mascia et al., We Asked Every Republican in a Tight Race Whether They’d Denounce Alex Jones, The Trace (Oct. 25, 2022), https://www.thetrace.org/2022/10/alex-jones-sandy-hook-republicans-election/.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Oliver Darcy, supra note 1.
9
Dave Collins, Alex Jones Seeks New Trial After $965 Million Verdict in Sandy Hook Lawsuit, PBS (Oct. 22, 2022, 3:00 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/alex-jones-seeks-new-trial-after-965-million-verdict-in-sandy-hook-lawsuit.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
71 No. 24 Bankr. Ct. Dec. News 2. Bankruptcy Court Decisions Weekly News & Comments, Westlaw.
14
Daniel Powell & Andrew Stebbins, Is Libel a Crime? A Guide to U.S. Criminal Defamation & Libel Laws, Minc Law (June 3, 2022), https://www.minclaw.com/criminal-defamation-libel-laws/.
15
Id. These include Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Montana, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Id.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
See generally Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 (1941) (“It is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste.”); United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (1943) (“Right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection.”); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (“National commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”).
19
What Does the Alex Jones Case Mean for the First Amendment and Disinformation? Leading Scholars, Lawyers Provide Analysis, First Amend. Watch at N.Y.U. (Aug. 8, 2022), https://firstamendmentwatch.org/what-does-the-alex-jones-case-mean-for-the-first-amendment-and-disinformation-leading-scholars-lawyers-provide-analysis/.
20
Id.
21
Id.
22
Id.
23
Oliver Darcy, supra note 1.
24
What Does the Alex Jones Case Mean for the First Amendment and Disinformation? Leading Scholars, Lawyers Provide Analysis, supra note 19.
25
Id.
26
Id.
27
Id.

I. Introduction

II. Background

III. Discussion

IV. Conclusion

Author

References

Discover more from University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog