We STILL Have to Talk About Alex Jones

I'm writing this blog in response to the CNN.com story "We Have to Talk About Alex Jones," which interviewed several random people (mostly not celebrities) about their opinions on whether Alex Jones's conspiracy theories and rants count as protected free speech, whether people have the right to sue him over what he says, and whether social media services have the right to remove him from their websites.

Some people hit the issues dead on the money, but many -- even some of the people who generally disagree with Alex Jones -- got so protective of the concept of free speech that they missed a few critical points that should be obvious -- or made obvious -- to everyone. So let's talk some basic facts. Not opinions -- my opinions on this are fairly strong -- but just facts for now.

Legally speaking, freedom of speech is not unlimited. The most cited example originated with Jutice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic."

It's commonly understood that Mr. Holmes was using the "fire in a crowded theater" hypothetical

as just one example of a general concept.

Many have argued that, legally/ metaphorically speaking, Alex Jones is indeed shouting "fire"

in a crowded theater every time he spouts one of his conspiracy theories. But let's leave aside

that particular debate just for a moment.

Our legal right to freedom of speech specifically protects us from governmental interference

from freedom of speech. The concept, however, was never meant,

and was never intended to mean, freedom from consequence

when we use or abuse that freedom.

If you say something that offends a privately owned company, like Facebook or Youtube,

that company has every right to distance itself from you. Indeed, that's how the people

who run such organizations practice their free speech.

And if you make statements that are both false

(Jones declaring the Newtown shooting to be a hoax)

and harmful (giving out personal contact information of the Newtown vicitms families

and encouraging his listeners to harrass them) you are subject to libel lawsuits that

cannot be interpreted as an infringement of your legal rights. Alex Jones is intentionally

spreading lies about people who have already suffered tremendously, and encouraging

people to victimize them further -- and then he is declaring himself the victim.

Any declaration that Jones is immune from libel because he honestly believes his accusations

is further misunderstanding of the law. "Honest belief" is an unprovable standard. In Jones's

case, nothing is stopping Jones from lying his head off about what he believes and

doesn't believe,

and nothing is stopping his legal opponents from making assumptions about what's in his

heart of hearts. Only he could possibly know, and even swearing under oath is no guarantee

of honesty.

But that's all fine. That's all moot. Because the unprovable "honest belief" is not the standard.

The standard is determining whether the false and harmful statements

were made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.

Yes, well, what is "adequate"? You could argue that it's a subjective standard. But let's look at the case

under question. The fact that the Newtown incident actually happened, and that real deaths

resulted from it, and that none of the participants were actors or conspirators -- these are all objectively

provable in a number of ways. You can deny it, like some deny the Holocaust. You can disbelieve it,

like some people think the wolrld is flat. But you cannot wilfully ignore the evidence and then claim

adequate research. What's sadly overlooked by far too many political figures these days is that opinion

and fact are two very different things. Jones can have his own opinions. But he cannot have his own facts.

The Newtown massacre either ojectively happened, or it objectively didn't happen.

It happened.