The Truth vs. Alex Jones

Within the first 6 minutes of the documentary that point is made clear when Alex Jones is trying to force another group not to expose the facts behind lies he extolls so he can sell a product.

There has been a long history of profiteers but with the speed of communications we have now, it can be more far-reaching. My biggest hope, is when these fraudsters are exposed not just they but they people that helped support their lies also have to pay or go to jail.

Hiding behind the First Amendment when you know you are lying does not give you freedom of speech.

The documentary is worth watching though to see all the details of the lunacy that was exposed.

The world got a horrible shock in December 2012 when a psychopath walked into a school in Connecticut and murdered several children. Most people were rightly horrified. Unfortunately, radio host Alex Jones - known for whipping up conspiracy theories - called it a false flag event, and his listeners ate it up.

Dan Reed's documentary "The Truth vs. Alex Jones" looks at Jones's rumor-mongering and how this led to harassment of the victims' parents. The harassment got to the point where the parents filed a lawsuit against Jones. Much of the documentary shows scenes inside the trial, with Jones trying to pretend that he didn't try to harm the parents.

The main thing to take away from the documentary is that Jones is the latest in a long line of blowhards making things up to further their careers (such as Joe McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh). Sadly, their fans - one might call them cultists - believe the lies and proceed to torment the victims. One can only hope that criminal prosecution will bring down these mendacious goons.

Not the greatest documentary, but I recommend it.

It's one thing to question authority and official explanations of highly public events; it's something else entirely to portray them in a wholly falsified light, especially when done so in a ridiculing manner that causes tremendous personal pain. Such is what happened when conspiracy theorist broadcaster Alex Jones fanatically contended that the December 2012 mass shooting at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School was a staged false flag event aimed at prompting the seizure of the private citizens' firearms, essentially gutting the guarantees of the Second Amendment. Jones vociferously claimed that the event didn't happen as reported in the mainstream media, that it was all pulled off with actors and that no one was killed. He openly mocked the public grieving of devastated parents through a relentless campaign of blatant disinformation, effectively enabling him to convince nearly a quarter of the nation's population into believing his story. Finally, after many anguishing years (including unbridled derision, public ridicule and death threats from disbelieving fanatics and hecklers), those who lost loved ones fought back, filing defamation suits in Jones's home state of Texas and in Connecticut, site of the tragedy. Documentarian Dan Reed's latest feature chronicles the events of this troubling story with no-holds-barred candor, capturing the searing pain of the Sandy Hook families, Jones's cartoonish out-of-control bluster and extensive courtroom footage of the two trials. Shot over four years, the filmmaker effectively captures the crazed ravings of a two-faced, delirious conman whose self-serving self-promotion efforts made P. T. Barnum look like a rank amateur by comparison. But what's perhaps most unsettling here is the film's uncompromising depiction of someone who honestly believed he could publicly say whatever he wanted through today's powerful, far-reaching communications technology - regardless of its truthfulness - and get away with it, a truly potent cautionary tale for our times. "The Truth vs. Alex Jones" poignantly reminds us of the precious nature of freedom of speech and the need to protect it, especially where matters of responsibility are concerned. Indeed, the First Amendment may allow us to express ourselves, but it doesn't give us license to lie.

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.

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.