Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?
No, while there are Constitutional limits (especially when the injured party is a public figure, see NY Times v. Sullivan), deliberate and often also reckless, harmful falsehood is not protected speech.
> Does this set a precedent that anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about an event is targetable by those who suffered from that event?
No, it just reinforces the existing precedent that people who deliberately or recklessly spread falsehoods about people can be sued by those injured by the falsehoods. Defamation isn't a new thing in law.
And this isn't the first time that has bitten Alex Jones.
IANAL (I am not a lawyer; and IANAAJA—I am not an Alex Jones apologist), but I think deserves qualification. My understanding is that it’s not the falsehood which is restricted, it’s the damage caused by purveying the falsehood. If I’m not mistaken I can claim (anywhere under US jurisdiction, unless under oath or otherwise legally sworn to be truthful) that I have a cat (I don’t) without any legal risk to 1A protection whatsoever. Granted, that could raise other eyebrows which might gain legal force if I persisted, presumably around competency to care for myself (or my dog, who I assure you does exist).
For example, Jones was defaulted on intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury’s compensatory damages were heavily weighted to IIED. So the damages can be abstract in some sense.
But yes, generally defamation requires both material false statements of fact, and damages to a specific party.
1) as other commenters have pointed out, this is for defamation against the parents for saying they were actors, sending "reporters" to harass them, etc.
2) He lost the defamation case by default for repeatedly refusing to comply with the court pre-trial. This trial was solely to determine damages.
> On September 27, 2021, a district judge in Texas issued three default judgments against Jones, requiring him to pay all damages in two lawsuits. These rulings came after Jones repeatedly failed to hand over documents and evidence as ordered by the court, which the judge characterized as "flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Sandy_Hook_school_s...
Not in any legal sense.
1) Defamation is already well established in US law; no novel legal questions came up regarding the borders of protected speach in this case.
2) Precedents are never set at trials. In order for anything from this case to become precedent, it would need to be appealed. Even then, the precedent is limited to the jurisdiction of the appellate court. For this to result in a national precedent, it would need to make its way to the Supreme Court.
3) It was already ruled that Jones is liable, this decision is entirely about the amount. The ruling on liability was not based on the merits of the case, but instead on procedural concerns. Specifically, in the words of the court:
> Defendants' dicovery conduct in this case has shown flagrant bad faith and callous disregard for the responsibilies of discovery under the rules. The Court finds Defendants' conduct is greatly aggravated by the consistent pattern of discovery abuse throughout the other Sandy Hook cases pending before this court. ... In sum, Defendants have been engaged in pervasis and persistent obstruction of the discovery process in general. The Court is also faced with Defendants' refusal to produce critical evidence. Defendants have shown a deliberate, contumacious, and unwarranted disregard for this Court's authority. Based on the record before it, this Court finds that Defendants' egregious discovery abuse justifies a presumption that its defenses lack merit.
If there is any precedent to be set here, it would not be about the merits of the defamation case, but about the due process implications of the default judgement. Having said that, I found that to be an even bigger stretch then a hypothetical challenge on the merits, as Jones was given ample oppurtunity to participate but simply choose not to.
https://infowarslawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Septe...
He can appeal, but the authority for a trial court to issue a default judgement is not new precedent but rather well established. It’s quite _rare_, but it’s happened before.
It should be noted that default judgments rarely stick when appealed.
Do you have a source for the rate of successful appeals against default judgements in Texas (or even more broadly)
I’m just not able to find anything on the topic one way or another.
Edit to add: Also, are you referring to a Motion to Set Aside made to the original judge, or an appeal made to an appellate court? My understanding is most judges will grant a timely motion to set aside if the default judgement was granted for not showing up because you were unaware of the court proceeding or had extenuating circumstances.
This default judgement was granted for misbehavior and refusing to engage with the process over years, so I’d want to look at statistics on successful appeals of a default judgement, and not statistics on successful motions to set aside.
Though, again, after a bit of searching I could find neither.
The point I was making by bringing up a due process claim was that there is no path for this case to become precedent regarding free speech.
Allowing the use of the courts to prohibit slander is a government action. Slander and libel are long standing exceptions to free speech. "Fighting words", espionage, contempt of court, or insubordination in the military are other exceptions that come to mind.
The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument that anyone is free to choose not to associate with you, or consider you a jerk, for something you said.
"Congress shall make no law..." We've extrapolated a bunch from there, but the founding words are pretty clear.
Example: I specifically prohibit peanuts in my kitchen, because I serve meals to allergic children. You sneak peanuts into the kitchen. I sue you and win.
Does this mean "Peanuts are illegal"? No. I have a civil action and we have a system of civil courts wherein these grievances can be aired and adjudicated.
Jones might have had a credible defense against the allegations of defamation (I haven't bothered to read the original complaint or any of the motions)--and defamation is notoriously hard for the plaintiffs to win in the US--but he was so uncooperative during discovery that he had a default judgement entered against him, meaning the only thing the jury had to decide was how much damages to award.
Interestingly, despite whether people believe free speech applies or not, the argument whether it could be considered free speech is actually irrelevant because Alex failed to test that defense by defaulting in the original trials by failing to turn over documents. As such, I can't imagine this would set a precedent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/alex-jones-sa...
"This specific dog owner, Judy Smith, is part of a secret cabal that eats babies" is libelous.
... or at potentially so. There are situations where it might not be found libelous.
Which is what he did, and why there are two default judgements against him.
It doesn't matter how right you are, or how stupid a lawsuit against you is - if you don't show up, you aren't likely to win.