Speaker 1: Well, we have a verdict in the defamation trial of Infowars conspiracy
theorist Alex Jones, and it is $49 million now. How much of it can actually be awarded per
Texas statutes is a separate question. How much of it can or will be collected
by the plaintiffs is another question. But this is the verdict regardless. Let's take
a look at the moment that the judge read it out. Remember that there were
a $4 million in compensatory damages and then we now get another 45 million in punitive
damages totaling nearly 40, just over $49 million. Speaker 2: Question number one, $4,200,000.
Question number two $20,500,000. Question number three $20,500,000. All right.
This question is addressed to my jury. Is this your verdict? So say each and all of
you. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Would the attorneys like to examine the verdict?
Speaker 1: So there it is. Ladies and gentlemen, Alex Jones, $49.3 million verdict as the Los
Angeles Times accurately points out. And one of the things that Michael Sisak from the
Associated Press writes about is what does this mean for the larger misinformation ecosystem,
a social media fueled world of election denial, COVID skepticism and other dubious claims that
Alex Jones helped to build? Now, there are many who are saying this is a defeat for so-called free
speech, but as I know many of you are aware, there is not. How can we put this? I am aware that even
though I have my show and I have my microphone and in a literal sense I can say whatever I want,
I can't just say anything and expect to be free from the consequences of that.
If I were to start targeting a private citizen, imagine that I had. Let's take the eggman,
for example. Our great caller, the eggman, who has been calling in and listening for over a decade.
Imagine that I started giving out the egg man's real name and saying things about him and making
all of these claims specifically about him. He's just a private person who sometimes calls in and
doesn't even identify himself by his real name, and it starts causing him problems at his job and
in his life and whatever. I would not expect that if he sues me for defamation or doxing or whatever
else that I could just say it's free speech and that's it. It would be absurd for me to think
that that would be a valid defense. Now, maybe the things I say are or aren't defamatory. That's a
very specific question. And part of it is whether they are true. But there are limits to what I can
do with my platform. I have a responsibility on the platform not to do that. And so,
sure, when I go after Roger Stone, as we're about to do a public person for things he publicly says,
that's one thing. But when you start saying the victims of a mass shooting were actors, they they
didn't really die. The parents are in on it. Here are specific parents who are in on it. That is not
free speech and it is not even with new law. Under the existing infrastructure of defamation law and
other law, you're not allowed to do that. So this is not about free speech. And there is a question
as to whether the doctors and the bullies and all of them who do this for a living
are now potentially going to be in jeopardy because of the same legal infrastructure.
Nothing new. No new law has been created because of the same legal infrastructure
that may bring down Alex Jones. It's a real question. We don't yet know the answer.