The Truth vs. Alex Jones

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.

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.

This is a documentry in English based in USA and covers the trails (two of them) that held Alex Jones accountable for lies and harressment of the families who lost their children and other loved one during the aftermath of Sandy Hook killings.

For me it was heartbreaking to watch. The pain and suffering one would experience when loosing a child that young is, described in vivid detail. (I have used the word loss twice now, please remember this word means murder, and killing).

Some reviews here still show a belief that this event never happened, so devasting was the reach of Alexs Jones. Its a tragedy, and in some way ALL Americans are responsibile for the murders of the 26 people, most children under six years. The Americans share the responsibility as they have failed to secure their gun laws so damaged people like Adam Lanza (the murderer) could not kill so many and so many so young.

It might be easier to believe that this never happened, than to say did we do all we could to prevent this from happening? Should we attack our laws, our legislator, our morality?

But instead of doing that, people looked to hid behind the lies of this man, this broken, pain inflicting man, this Alex Jones. The fear of loosing their guns sems to give people a right to lash out and inflict further pain on strangers than to acknowledge the truth.

Alex Jones lied.

The court found that he had lied.

This documentry is ablout his lies, and the continuation of him lying.

Sadly though; people will continue to believe lies no matter what truth they are presented. And era of the avoidance of truth seems just to have began!

Do watch this, no matter your beliefs.

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.