Heslin v. Jones (2020)

Facts:

Alex Jones is a far right, Texas-based broadcasting personality that promotes First and Second Amendment rights. Jones owns Free Speech Systems, the parent company of Infowars; a right-wing media platform notorious for its advocation of misinformation and political extremism. Owen Shroyer, a prior co-host of Infowars with Jones, is also a conservative broadcaster and political commentator. The Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting occurred on December 14, 2012. A total of 26 people were killed including 20 young children, namely six-year-old Jesse Lewis. Neil Heslin, Jesse’s father, became an advocate for gun control following his son’s tragic death.

 

Issue:

Very shortly after the shooting, Alex Jones took to Infowars and claimed on a podcast that the tragedy was a ‘false flag’ operation, or that the event was a hoax orchestrated by the Sandy Hook families and the media to promote gun control. Jones claimed the victims and their families were hired crisis actors, and labeled them as “liars”. As a result, many of the Sandy Hook families experienced both online and in-person harassment and threats to their own lives. Heslin sued for defamation, specifically against their disbelief that Heslin held his deceased child in his arms. The defendants attempted to file a motion to dismiss the case under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), but were denied.

 

Decision:

Jones and Shroyer initially claimed that their statements were protected according to the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Carr v. Brasher (2001), in which subjective commentary expression is protected under the First Amendment. This claim was dismissed by the court according to the Ollman Test. Next, the appellants attempted to use the substantial truth doctrine and then the fair comment privilege, although both were denied by the Texas Court of Appeals. Overall, the case leaned in Heslin’s favor, who was awarded $110,000 in compensatory damages and $4.2 million in exemplary damages. In later defamation cases against Alex Jones by other Sandy Hook families, the Court similarly found the Infowars statements defamatory and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. Jones has since liquidated his assets and is selling Infowars to pay the Court-ordered $1.5 billion to the Sandy Hook families.

​

Reasoning:

• The Ollman Test

  • First, the statements made on Infowars were analyzed as truth or opinion according to the Ollman Test, which was set as precedent in Ollman v. Evans (1984):

    • ​Is the statement verifiable, that is, capable of being proven true or false?

    • What is the common usage of the words in the statement?

    • What is the journalistic context in which the statement is made?
      For instance, an op-ed would symbolize opinion?
      What is the social context in which the statement is made?

  • The Texas Court of Appeals found Jones’ and Shroyer’s statements to be subjective opinion, not fact. This was mainly due to the provable inconsistencies in their statements, for example their claim that a single weapon used in the shooting was found in a locked trunk, despite the gunman bringing multiple guns. The Court found the statements made on Infowars to be verifiably false, thus unprotected.

​

• Substantial Truth Doctrine

  • After the Ollman Test found Jones’ and Shroyer’s statements to be opinion, not fact, the defendants attempted to apply the substantial truth doctrine, which allows media platforms to use truth as a defense if these outlets “accurately report allegations in cases where the public interest is involved”. The Court dismissed this defense by citing the comments made through the Infowars platform as “independent statements of fact” that disputed Heslin’s experience, namely holding his son’s body after the shooting.

​

• Fair Comment Privilege

  • Lastly, Jones and Shroyer invoked the fair comment privilege, which protects the user against claims of defamation in circumstances where there is fair and reasonable comment on matters of public interest. The Court also denied this defense as comments where a substantially false statement of fact which the defendant conveys as truth are not protected.

 

Significance:
This case raises important questions regarding the relationship between First Amendment rights and defamation, as Jones and Shroyer used Freedom of Speech as a defense. The Court’s decision to find the defendants libelous of defamation against Heslin reiterates the emotional, mental and psychological harm of hateful, misinformed speech in light of a controversial tragedy. In addition, this case emphasizes the potential real-life dangers of conspiracy theories and political extremism fueled by misinformation in the digital age.

 

Sources:

“Heslin v. Jones (In Re Jones).” Casetext, 19 Aug. 2023, Link. 

“Jones v. Heslin.” Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University, 2024, Link. 

Lasson, Julie. “Teacher Guide: Can First Amendment Defenses Save Alex Jones From Libel Suits?” First Amendment Watch, New York University, 1 Aug. 2020, Link. 

Smith, Tovia, and Steve Inskeep. “Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Agrees to Liquidate Assets to Pay Sandy Hook Families.” NPR, NPR, 6 June 2024, Link.