The Truth vs. Alex Jones

Alex Jones has asserted that the lawsuits against him concerning his bogus claims that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Dec, 2012 was a massive hoax violate his Free Speech rights. He has also claimed that the removal of his videos which made the same claims on Youtube or Facebook also violated his First Amendment Rights. Or if someone challenges his views, that's also a violation of his First Amendment rights. Wrong.

Here's what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

So freedom of speech is about prohibiting any government of the US, from a city council to the US Congress, passing a law to prohibit freedom of speech and/or press. This does not mean that a private company such as Youtube or Facebook are somehow prohibited from denying someone their point of view on anything at anytime. In the case of Alex Jones, if individuals find his views objectionable and/or are harmed by them, that somehow they are violating his rights to speech if they protest or file a lawsuit. Yes, most free speech is protected from government intervention but they may be subject to defamation lawsuits if proved to be false and/or harmful.

This documentary is about the defamation lawsuits and trials against Alex Jones and InfoWars who repeatedly for now going on 10+ years claimed that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary was somehow a hoax and the grieving parents were actors, and the city of Sandy Hook staged the event. And if anyone was harmed by his assertions, they have no case because Jones is protected by the First Amendment. Again wrong.

Yes, an individual does have the right to propagate just about anything they desire without government hindrance, more or less, but there are limitations including injunctions as a result of due process of law. For example, yelling "Fire" in a packed movie theater when there is no fire is not protected under the First Amendment. Also, anyone making false claims can be subject to a civil lawsuit and/or trial if they propagate falsehoods and people are harmed by such propagation. There are yet others such as leaking classified government documents. Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers was going to be tried for the leak in a criminal case which was eventually dismissed. (I'm sounding like someone with a law degree!)

The parents of the slain children at Sandy Hook Elementary filed two defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones when for 10 years he claimed that no child actually died at SH Elem late 2012, the parents were actors, and the activities of law enforcement and EMT's were all staged. Why? Because, according to Jones, it was a left-wing hoax designed to motivate the US Government to pass laws to take away people's guns.

In fact, in the wake of the shooting, a loophole in the law about gun control was put up for a vote by the US Congress, insisted upon by then President Barack Obama. Five Republican Senators who were pressured by the NRA and other pro-gun groups voted against it, fearing retaliation in a primary. So, even if Jones was correct about the shooting being a hoax to promote the ultimate prohibition of guns, which of course it wasn't, the "hoax" failed miserably.

These parents for over 10 years have been harassed, being accused of being liars and at worst experiencing death threats. I know one parent continually moved under false names and was still "found" by conspiracy fantasists. One of the most poignant moments of the doc is when one of the parents talked to someone who noticed her pendant as a memorial to her child. She was asked about it and the mother explained it was for her child who died at Sandy Hook. To which this person said "They said it was a hoax" (I'm paraphrasing). I would be really curious who this "they" that were referring to. Obviously most likely Alex Jones on his InfoWars.

One item which should be noted but hasn't actually been addressed: it is a serious crime, a felony no less, to impersonate a police officer or a government official. So Jones was also alleging that the police officers and government officials who arrived on the scene are all actors. If so, Jones should have pressed that these people also be arrested.

I think the term "conspiracy theory" should be substituted with a new term: "Conspiracy Fantasy". There are conspiracy theories which have proved to be true, such as the Watergate scandal which began as a theory based on the reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. A real theory is based on concrete evidence, only the "theory" designation means that there is no means to prove something to be absolutely true or could be refuted with new evidence. When government officials under then President Nixon admitted to the Watergate break-in and the ensuing cover-up, the "theory' became fact. The Watergate Scandal is no longer regarded as a conspiracy theory but a fact.

Jones did not create a theory about the Sandy Hook shooting based on hardcore investigation and evidence. He didn't interview the parents, he didn't interview the police officers and government officials who arrived on the scene. So far as I know he never even visited Sandy Hook in Connecticut. He concocted a "fantasy conspiracy" and then found tiny bits and pieces to somehow prove that Sandy Hook never happened.

One of the saddest moments of the incident was Robbie Parker's speech a day after the shooting. His daughter Emilie was one of the slain children. But it ended up being one of the nuttiest pieces of "evidence" offered by Jones. When Parker went up to the microphone he was shocked to see all the reporters and onlookers. He had never been in such a spotlight before. He then made a brief chuckle out of embarrassment. (I have been a performing musician for several decades and I know what he was going through. I still get nervous when I get out on stage.)

But Jones propagated on InfoWars that Parker's "chuckle" proved he was in fact an actor who never had a daughter. One question I've always had for Jones: if these people were all trained actors as he claimed, where did they get their training? What degrees had they earned? AFI in Los Angeles? Juilliard? Yale School of Drama? Had they appeared in theater, commercials, TV shows or even movies?

If Jones was really a diligent reporter and journalist, wouldn't he feel obligated to find which acting schools and work these people had on their resumes since he claimed there were "trained actors". Parker in particular claimed he had never been in front of an audience before his speech. He was just a grief-stricken father trying to cope with the loss of his daughter. Even though it goes without saying: he is not an actor. And Jones is not a journalist but a political entertainer. Period.

One of the biggest ironies in this whole tragedy is Alex Jones claiming the Sandy Hook families faked and acted the whole thing - when Jones himself is just an actor. And not a very good one.

He is a charlatan who preys on a vulnerable audience to make money.

This is a great documentary which shows the rise of fringe groups that have sucked in a group of people who doesn't even believe in basic science. A decent percentage of the population really needs to grow up and learn from this whole situation.

Grifters will always grift but they can't if they don't have a market.

I just feel so sorry for all the families and victims who lost everything and those poor children who were robbed of their future while a redneck continues to con people without any remorse or guilt for what he is doing or what he has done.

A friend once said that "Alex Jones never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like." I avoid AJ like the plague, so ... maybe? In any case, AJ comes across as a manipulative ego-maniac in this film.

This documentary is of limited value to anyone already familiar with the horrific Sandy Hook school shooting, but I think many will find it watchable. I think the film does a good job of bringing up issues and posing questions (without jumping to biased conclusions).

I have frequently argued with conspiracy theorists online, as many do not believe man ever set foot on the Moon, despite ample (and obvious) evidence. These people seriously believe that they have esoteric knowledge, and anyone who believes the "mainstream narrative" does so for "religious" reasons. These people cannot be reasoned with (as one of the Sandy Hook parents explains); they simply believe all counter-evidence is fake. The sad reality is that these know-nothings promote their garbage with a religious zeal that they project onto others; they believe they're entirely rational, despite their invariably poor understanding of science and engineering. A popular topic is 9/11.

Some liberals say censorship is the answer, but I believe MORE speech, not less, is the best approach, or we go down a slippery slope towards an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. This documentary is a fine example of *more* speech; I think it's important to acknowledge that.

I would have preferred crisper editing to make room for more legal details. There is a LOT of human-interest footage involving the parents, but these poor folks were demonized for being "crisis actors", and so it's understandable for the film to focus on their plight. While this documentary isn't overly informative, it showcases basic reality here. However, the slow pacing seems designed to fill up an arbitrary 2-hour run length.

It feels trite to rate this, but I give it seven (7) stars. My heart goes out to all the victims' families (my rating isn't about them; it's purely technical). The tombstone footage at the end was very moving.

PS: There are only 10 reviews preceding mine, and already we have a one-star review by an AJ foot soldier (aka "true believer"). It's disturbing how common (and loud-mouthed) these "hoaxer" types are. I say learn to recognize (and ignore) them.

I lost an old friend to Alex Jones when Infowars did a special on the Bilderberg group (basically "Jewish cabal controls the world"). This friend, a successful game designer with a college degree, accused me of not being open to different interpretations of facts, and I cut ties with him because I had to admit to myself that you cannot penetrate a wall of BS with rationality when people want to believe what they want to believe - in his case, antisemitism.

I was hoping this documentary would dwell a little more on how we have come to this distorted scary place and what a major part Alex Jones has played in this. It is fitting to give the Sandy Hook parents so much room, to show that they are real people whose kids were really murdered. And you can deduct from Jones' own statements that he thought he could escape justice with the mob power of his (ab)user base. But unfortunately the film plays out as a courtroom drama and will therefore do little to dissuade the (mis)believers. Don't get me wrong, it's great material, and I understand that the director wants to use as much of it as he can. But those who think Alex Jones is a false prophet will just receive yet another confirmation, while those who take him for a civil rights hero will still find it possible to confirm that.

It's an important documentary in terms of respecting real victims and giving them a voice. But I wish the approach had been broader so as to describe just how many myths on how many subjects this man has created and how many millions of people he has harmed.

The Truth vs. Alex Jones is mainly two things. On one hand, it is a documentary on the lawsuits filed against alt-news provocateur and InfoWars founder Alex Jones following his coverage of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, which he called a "false flag operation" that thousands of people were in on, including the grieving parents who he notoriously dubbed "crisis actors", inciting ceaseless harassment. (He has since also been blacklisted from YouTube.) On the other hand, it is an exploration of Jones as a persona and what it is that intrigues even those who revile him.

This is, most would say, one of the absolute worst human beings alive. As we see the Sandy Hook court proceedings and interrogations, where Jones is finally confronted about his lies in a way where he can't get away the same as he would've done if the cameras were at his command, the film inevitably ends up satisfying -- even as the subject matter is harrowing.

And yet, there's something about Jones as a character -- a boisterous loudmouth whose explanations for things will get so outlandish they read like a Reddit theory about The X-Files as orated by a WWE champion -- that intrigues pretty much all of us. One interviewee explains that you may become glued to the show because "You want to see what else he'll say", echoing the scene from Private Parts where both fans and haters of Howard Stern give their answers to why they keep tuning in.

The movie, which is refreshingly concise given the popularity of the "docuseries", underscores just what a cartoon of a man this is; not in an affectionate way, but in a "car crash that you can't look away from" sort of way (only instead of a car crash it's a great ape who figured out microphones and Rolexes but little else). Even in the courtroom, he can't seem to help doing/saying something goofy.

It also explores his beginnings on Austin public radio and we learn some damning, yet unsurprising details from former colleagues of his about how IW does its fact-finding. In 2011, when there were fears that radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown had made it to the coast of California, and Jones' research team reported that their instruments showed this wasn't the case, IW producers immediately gave them a call demanding that all those logs/videos be destroyed, as they went against the narrative Jones wanted to tell and thus advertise the hot new IW product, in this case an iodine supplement meant to shield against fallout. Few things could more perfectly capture what this website -- and most alternate news in general -- is ultimately about.

In my review of Mike Cernovich's Hoaxed, I wrote that, yes, it's good to be critical of mainstream news/opinion; it's just that you shouldn't switch off your scrutiny just because the news is now coming from a sphere whose politics you happen to like (especially when they'll very provably base their reporting on what they're trying to sell). Looking at the current state of conspiracy theories -- where you seemingly can't go two minutes without seeing a post about space lasers and Satanic agendas -- I'd say my supplication fell on deaf ears.

It may sound like a slippery-slope fallacy, but I've seen it occur in real-time with a friend, whose thought process basically went "Well this guy validated by opinions about Islam and the anti-gun media, so he MUST be correct about chemtrails". It's often said that Alex Jones only appeals to those who already agree with him -- that he exists, not to change your mind, but to tell you that you're already right and get you to pay him to say it more -- and while it's true that that's how he gets ya, those people go from bad to worse (whichever tier of "bad" they were already on) once Jones starts telling them about some other things the Bad Guys are up to.

As this film shows, Jones is arguably the most important figure in the normalization of conspiracy nonsense we've seen during these past few years. We're reminded that during the 2016 presidential race -- which involved a considerable boost for alternate news -- the Trumpster himself sang Jones' praises. We're shown there was a period where InfoWars garnered more viewers than CNN.

I myself once wrote about how this magnitude of conspiracy-theorist thinking was well underway to becoming more mainstream, due in no small part to the popularity of InfoWars. And like I said, now it's everywhere. Hell, compared to some of the theories I covered in The Big Conspiracy Guide of 2023, Jones is falling behind (which is another prediction I had; that he would soon be deemed "too vanilla" if this keeps spiraling out of control).

In 2021, many of us learned that even he -- the guy with the gay frog water thesis and the spiels about "weather weapons" -- still isn't insane enough for the QAnon theories (which is to say nothing of how normal he looked next to Kanye West in 2022). Regardless, he is become Death, the destroyer of non-flat worlds.

Again, it's very satisfying to see him confronted in a setting where he can't hide or yell loudly enough at reality until reality gives up, but in a lot of ways, this is a horrifying film. Like the recent Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV, its presentation is sometimes cheesier than seems appropriate for the topic, but it doesn't take away from the film's importance.