‘SLAPP’ Lawsuit Against Alex Jones Has Chilling Implications For Free Speech

in News by
   

Infowars host and leading conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is feeling the heat like never before these days. After being one of the primary reasons Donald Trump was elected President in 2016, he is being attacked from every angle.

The Independent reports that Jones is now being sued in a case with massive implications for free speech.

A lawsuit is being filed by the parents of victims of the Sandy Hook massacre that left 20 children shot dead. The lawsuit claims that Jones has participated in the “continuation and elaboration of a years-long campaign to falsely attack the honesty of the Sandy Hook parents, casting them as participants in a ghastly conspiracy and cover-up.”

Jones is being sued in part for expressing his opinion regarding the Sandy Hook shooting back in 2014 on his radio program:

“Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are, that they clearly used actors. I mean they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey — so yeah, or Pakistan. The sky is now the limit.”

In addition, Infowars reporter Owen Shroyer doubted plaintiff Neil Heslin’s story that he “held [his] son with a bullet hole through his head” that was told by Heslin during a national TV interview. These comments appear to be the full basis of the lawsuit.



For merely stating his opinion protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, Jones is now under attack from a lawsuit that looks to be a standard strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). According to Wikipedia, a SLAPP can be defined as follows:

“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.”

If Alex Jones is sued out of business for merely expressing an opinion, it will mean that all independent-minded voices will be next. This case has massive implications for the 1st Amendment and will set a key precedent moving forward. If the plaintiffs are successful, the Bill of Rights will essentially be null and void.

2 Comments

  1. Calling someone (Neil Heslin) a liar in a public forum is slander. The only defense against slander is proof that it is a true statement. If Alex Jones is a stand-up journalist, he’s got that proof. If he doesn’t, he’s just a common slanderer.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s not a new concept.

  2. He is a turd but you are free to be one in the country. Taking action against him legally is worse than the disease. Still just think what we can do to his equivalent on the left and in the establishment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from News



Wait! Before you leave, share this article!

Share this article!

Go to Top

Like and follow us on social media!