BUT WITH THE CASE STILL ONGOING, WE BROUGHT IN LEGAL ANALYST
WE BROUGHT IN LEGAL ANALYST DANNY CEVALLOS TO FILL IN THE
DANNY CEVALLOS TO FILL IN THE DETAILS.
DETAILS. >> ALEX JONES IS THE SUBJECT OF
>> ALEX JONES IS THE SUBJECT OF A LOT OF LAWSUITS.
A LOT OF LAWSUITS. ONE OF THE BIGGEST IS IN
ONE OF THE BIGGEST IS IN CONNECTICUT WHERE HE IS BEING
CONNECTICUT WHERE HE IS BEING SUED FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY,
SUED FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY, DEFAMATION AND INVASION OF
DEFAMATION AND INVASION OF PRIVACY BASED ON COMMENTS HE
PRIVACY BASED ON COMMENTS HE MADE ABOUT SANDY HOOK AND THE
MADE ABOUT SANDY HOOK AND THE MASSACRE AT THE SCHOOL THERE
MASSACRE AT THE SCHOOL THERE BEING A HOAX.
BEING A HOAX. HOW IS ALEX JONES BEING SUED FOR
HOW IS ALEX JONES BEING SUED FOR SOMETHING HE SAID ABOUT THE
SOMETHING HE SAID ABOUT THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTING?
SANDY HOOK SHOOTING? ISN’T THAT COVERED BY FREE
ISN’T THAT COVERED BY FREE SPEECH?
SPEECH? >> FAMILIES OF THE CHILDREN
>> FAMILIES OF THE CHILDREN KILLED, INCLUDING DEFAMATION.
KILLED, INCLUDING DEFAMATION. DEFAMATION IS SOMETHING THAT’S
DEFAMATION IS SOMETHING THAT’S AUFRP ALLEGED, BUT RARELY
AUFRP ALLEGED, BUT RARELY ACTUALLY LITIGATED AND THAT’S
ACTUALLY LITIGATED AND THAT’S BECAUSE WHEN REGULAR PEOPLE SAY
BECAUSE WHEN REGULAR PEOPLE SAY NASTY THINGS ABOUT OTHER REGULAR
NASTY THINGS ABOUT OTHER REGULAR PEOPLE IT’S DIFFICULT TO SHOW
PEOPLE IT’S DIFFICULT TO SHOW THAT THOSE STATEMENTS ACTUALLY
THAT THOSE STATEMENTS ACTUALLY CAUSED DAMAGES.
CAUSED DAMAGES. BUT WHEN YOU ARE ALEX JONES AND
BUT WHEN YOU ARE ALEX JONES AND YOUR WORDS REACH MILLIONS AND
YOUR WORDS REACH MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE YOUR WORDS
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE YOUR WORDS CAN CAUSE HARM.
CAN CAUSE HARM. AND THAT’S WHY DEFAMATION IS
AND THAT’S WHY DEFAMATION IS ABEXCEPTION AND YOU HAVE
ABEXCEPTION AND YOU HAVE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR SPEECH UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU
YOUR SPEECH UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS AND THOSE
MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS AND THOSE STATEMENTS HARM OTHERS.
STATEMENTS HARM OTHERS. IN EVERY CIVIL LAWSUIT THERE IS
IN EVERY CIVIL LAWSUIT THERE IS A PERIOD CALLED DISCOVERY.
A PERIOD CALLED DISCOVERY. THAT’S WHEN IN THE AMERICAN
THAT’S WHEN IN THE AMERICAN SYSTEM THE PARTIES EXCHANGE
SYSTEM THE PARTIES EXCHANGE INFORMATION ABOUT EACH OTHER.
INFORMATION ABOUT EACH OTHER. IF YOU’RE A DEFENDANT, DISCOVERY
IF YOU’RE A DEFENDANT, DISCOVERY CAN BE DEVASTATING BECAUSE YOU
CAN BE DEVASTATING BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO TURN OVER SOMETIMES
HAVE TO TURN OVER SOMETIMES SENSITIVE INFORMATION ABOUT
SENSITIVE INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF AND YOUR COMPANY.
YOURSELF AND YOUR COMPANY. SOMETIMES THE DISCOVERY PROCESS
SOMETIMES THE DISCOVERY PROCESS UNCOVERS SOME REALLY
UNCOVERS SOME REALLY INTERESTING, UNEXPECTED THINGS.
INTERESTING, UNEXPECTED THINGS. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT’S HAPPENED
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT’S HAPPENED IN THE ALEX JONES CASE.
IN THE ALEX JONES CASE. IN TURNING OVER DISCOVERY, JONES
IN TURNING OVER DISCOVERY, JONES AND THE OTHER DEFENDANTS HAVE
AND THE OTHER DEFENDANTS HAVE DISCLOSED A NUMBER OF EMAILS AND
DISCLOSED A NUMBER OF EMAILS AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT
OTHER INFORMATION THAT APPARENTLY HAD CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
APPARENTLY HAD CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN IT.
IN IT. JONES’ TEAM SAYS THEY DIDN’T
JONES’ TEAM SAYS THEY DIDN’T ACTUALLY POSSESS IT UNDER THE
ACTUALLY POSSESS IT UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW.
CRIMINAL LAW. INSTEAD, THIS WAS INFORMATION OR
INSTEAD, THIS WAS INFORMATION OR PORNOGRAPHY THAT WAS SENT TO
PORNOGRAPHY THAT WAS SENT TO THEM BY OUTSIDERS, BUT BECAUSE
THEM BY OUTSIDERS, BUT BECAUSE THEY TURNED OVER EVERYTHING IN
THEY TURNED OVER EVERYTHING IN THEIR EMAIL ACCOUNTS, THAT CHILD
THEIR EMAIL ACCOUNTS, THAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WAS INCLUDED AND
PORNOGRAPHY WAS INCLUDED AND FROM THERE ALEX JONES TOOK TO
FROM THERE ALEX JONES TOOK TO THE AIRWAVES AND SUGGESTED THAT
THE AIRWAVES AND SUGGESTED THAT THE PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS MAY
THE PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS MAY HAVE PLANTED THIS CHILD
HAVE PLANTED THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
PORNOGRAPHY. THE JUDGE DIDN’T LIKE THAT ONE
THE JUDGE DIDN’T LIKE THAT ONE BIT AND IMPOSED SOME HEAVY
BIT AND IMPOSED SOME HEAVY SANCTIONS ON ALEX JONES AND THE
SANCTIONS ON ALEX JONES AND THE OTHER DEFENDANTS.
OTHER DEFENDANTS. WHAT THE OTHER DEFENDANTS HAVE
WHAT THE OTHER DEFENDANTS HAVE IN THESE CASES IS THAT THE FIRST
IN THESE CASES IS THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS THEIR RIGHT
AMENDMENT PROTECTS THEIR RIGHT TO SAY RIDICULOUS, HURTFUL
TO SAY RIDICULOUS, HURTFUL THINGS AND THE PLAINTIFF’S
THINGS AND THE PLAINTIFF’S DEFAMATION CASE IS SHOWING THESE
DEFAMATION CASE IS SHOWING THESE STATEMENTS WERE FALSE, WHICH
STATEMENTS WERE FALSE, WHICH THEY WERE AND THEY WERE
THEY WERE AND THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY FALSE, WHICH THEY
INTENTIONALLY FALSE, WHICH THEY PROBABLY WERE.
PROBABLY WERE. HOWEVER, THEY STILL HAVE TO GET
HOWEVER, THEY STILL HAVE TO GET OVER THAT FIRST AMENDMENT
OVER THAT FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE.
DEFENSE. ALEX JONES HAS FRAMED HIMSELF AS
ALEX JONES HAS FRAMED HIMSELF AS A CHAMPION FOR THE FIRST
A CHAMPION FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FORGET THE PRIVATE
AMENDMENT AND FORGET THE PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT HAVE PICKED HIM
COMPANIES THAT HAVE PICKED HIM UP, FORGET FACEBOOK AND SPOTIFY
UP, FORGET FACEBOOK AND SPOTIFY AND THESE CASES ARE WHEN THE
AND THESE CASES ARE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GETS TO INTRUDE ON
GOVERNMENT GETS TO INTRUDE ON YOUR LENNERY TO SAY ALMOST
YOUR LENNERY TO SAY ALMOST ANYTHING YOU WANT.
ANYTHING YOU WANT. ALEX JONES HAS ALWAYS WALK WOULD
ALEX JONES HAS ALWAYS WALK WOULD THE LINE BETWEEN DEFAMATION AND
THE LINE BETWEEN DEFAMATION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THIS MAY BE A CASE WHERE HE HAS
