Last week, a federal bankruptcy judge ordered that Alex Jones must sell Infowars to help satisfy the $1.28 billion defamation judgment awarded to the families of Sandy Hook victims.
For many Americans, the name “Alex Jones” provokes strong reactions—whether ridicule, admiration, or anger. But no matter how one views Jones personally, this ruling raises serious questions about the future of free speech in America.
This isn’t a defense of his rhetoric, but rather a warning: if billion-dollar judgments can bankrupt controversial figures and force the liquidation of entire media outlets, then the precedent could be applied far beyond Alex Jones.
Free Speech on Trial
America has a long history of protecting speech, especially controversial speech. In the 1988 case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the Supreme Court made clear that even offensive and outrageous commentary deserved First Amendment protection.
Yet today, in the wake of the Jones ruling, we may be seeing a weaponization of civil judgments as a tool to silence dissenting or unpopular voices. If Jones can lose his company for speech deemed harmful, who is to say that a future lawsuit couldn’t target a gun rights group for “dangerous rhetoric” about the Second Amendment? The chilling effect here is undeniable.
Sandy Hook and the Gun Control Playbook
Whether or not one agrees with Jones’ infamous “hoax” claims about the Sandy Hook school shooting, there is no disputing one fact: the shooting was weaponized to push a radical gun control agenda.
In 2013, President Obama and Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey launched the universal background check push—what gun owners rightly called “universal gun registration.” At the same time, Senate Democrats pushed hard for a sweeping “assault weapons” ban and magazine restrictions. Though those bills ultimately failed, the fight marked a turning point in American gun politics.
It was this very battle following Sandy Hook that fueled the explosive growth of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), the no-compromise affiliate of Texas Gun Rights — especially after the NRA folded like a cheap suit by supporting the gun control bill.
By mobilizing grassroots pressure, NAGR led the successful charge against Toomey-Manchin, defeating one of the largest federal gun control pushes in decades
Exploiting Tragedy: A Pattern
Sadly, Sandy Hook wasn’t an isolated case of political opportunism. Each time tragedy strikes, gun control advocates attempt to capitalize:
Columbine (1999) → new calls for universal background checks
Virginia Tech (2007) → NICS gun registry expansion
Sandy Hook (2012) → universal gun registration, AWB revival
Sutherland Springs (2017) → Senator John Cornyn’s “FIX NICS” gun registry expansion
Uvalde (2022) → Cornyn’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act
The pattern is clear. Democrats — and some Republicans — sensationalize tragedies to push their long-term goal of disarming law-abiding citizens and limiting their rights. So even if you don’t believe Alex Jones was wrong to call Sandy Hook a hoax, he was right to say that elites would exploit it to attack the Second Amendment.
The Danger of Precedent
The forced sale of Infowars doesn’t happen in a vacuum. When controversial speech results in billion-dollar penalties, the precedent threatens every advocacy group, church, commentator, and publication that dares challenge the political establishment.
If a federal judge can order Jones’ company dismantled, what happens when a Soros-funded prosecutor or activist group targets gun rights organizations next? The implications are chilling.
Jones’ case serves as a reminder of why groups like Texas Gun Rights and NAGR exist in the first place. While the left exploits tragedy to push bans and registries, no-compromise organizations mobilize the grassroots to stop them.
As Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights, put it:
“Never let a crisis go to waste”
It will be far easier to eliminate the first amendment if you act quickly, after a crisis has occurred.
It also helps if you are selective, as to whose speech you will support, and whose speech you will not support.
For example when congress woman maxine waters publicly said that trump supporters should be confronted in restaurants, and made to feel uncomfortable.
The libertarians liberals and leftists were quiet as a church mouse when she that.
But if it was a Christian pastor who said that Homosexuals should be made to feel uncomfortable in public. I would have seen over 200 well-written opinion pieces condemning this person. As a response.
Alex jones was and still is an effective speaker against government corruption. Even when the government stole his private company from him. Even though he violated no law.
And of course, the media is not complaining about what happened to Alex jones. Because Alex Jones is their competition. And they’re quite happy to see the government destroy their competition.
The media does not support the first amendment. But they do support having their competition destroyed.
“Never let a crisis go to waste”
It will be far easier to eliminate the first amendment if you act quickly, after a crisis has occurred.
It also helps if you are selective, as to whose speech you will support, and whose speech you will not support.
For example when congress woman maxine waters publicly said that trump supporters should be confronted in restaurants, and made to feel uncomfortable.
The libertarians liberals and leftists were quiet as a church mouse when she that.
But if it was a Christian pastor who said that H0.m”0se.zu@ls should be made to feel uncomfortable in public. I would have seen over 200 well-written opinion pieces condemning this person. As a response.
Alex jones was and still is an effective speaker against government corruption. Even when the government stole his private company from him. Even though he violated no law.
And of course, the media is not complaining about what happened to Alex jones. Because Alex Jones is their competition. And they’re quite happy to see the government destroy their competition.
The media does not support the first amendment. But they do support having their competition destroyed.
Chris, he actually violated the defamation laws. Now you may argue that those laws should not exist….but clearly they do exist. He knew that the parents were not “crisis actors” yet he continued to claim that they were. They then experienced harm as a result of these lies.
This has nothing to do with the first amendment. It wasn’t simply unpopular speach it was untruthful speach which actually harmed others. They were able to prove in court that he knew his speach was untruthful and as a result he was found liable of violating the law.
He would have been within his rights to say all sorts of nasty things about those unfortunate parents but when he bagan to intentionally lie about them and damage them, that is when it violated the law.
Forget principle. Jones deserves this. He is a loudmouth jackass.
drink bleach pinko
It’s not illegal to be a loudmouth jackass. All he was doing was asking questions, questions that the powers that be didn’t want the answers to come out. He’s been right about a lot of things.
30 years ago this sort of maneuver may have mattered but the way Alex and his audience are any publicity only increases his reach.
His attackers are playing by some obsolete Boomer playbook run by the likes of the MSM, screeching blue-haired Karens, late-night TV hosts and geriatric politicians as if they have no idea it’s 2025.
Hey, Shire-man!!
If the adjective ‘obsolete’ is meant to modify the noun ‘playbook’, no problem. But if the adjective ‘obsolete’ is meant to modify the noun ‘Boomer’, I object!!! 🙂