Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: ALEX JONES ADMITS LIABILITY FOR STATEMENTS ABOUT BRENNAN GILMORE 

Gilmore Litigation “Strikes a Blow Against Conspiracy Theorists and Disinformation Peddlers” 

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA – Brennan Gilmore secured an admission of liability in his federal defamation suit against Alex Jones relating to events during and after the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA. This is possibly the first time that Jones has admitted to liability for defamation in a court filing.

“This has been a long and difficult process,” Brennan Gilmore said, “but I am gratified to have cleared my name and forced Alex Jones to admit that his statements about me were defamatory. I think that this outcome strikes a blow against conspiracy theorists and disinformation peddlers anywhere in America who erode civil discourse in our democratic society.” 

At the 2017 rally, Gilmore filmed and posted video of a self-described neo-Nazi deliberately driving into a crowd of counter-protestors, killing Heather Heyer and injuring dozens of others. Afterward, Gilmore became the subject of false conspiracy theories put forward by Jones and others. After these conspiracy theories spread online, Gilmore feared for the safety of his family and himself. As a result, Gilmore brought suit against Jones and others for defamation in federal court in 2018.

Gilmore continued. “Heather Heyer peacefully and powerfully pushed back against the violent racists who descended on Charlottesville in 2017. But after she was murdered by a neo-Nazi, the conspiracy theory industrial complex went into overdrive to distort this violent act of white supremacy and confuse the post-tragedy narrative. This online ecosystem of conspiracy theory websites and extremist message boards fuels the kind of hate we saw in Charlottesville, and well beyond. I am gratified that we succeeded in holding Alex Jones accountable for what he said about me and securing admission of liability in resolving the case.”

In addition to Jones, Gilmore secured admissions of liability in court filings from seven other defendants that he sued for defamation. Judgement was entered by the court against an eighth defendant. Two defendants were dismissed from the case.

Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra added, “It has been an honor for CAC to be part of an outstanding legal team, including the Georgetown Law Civil Rights Clinic and the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, representing Mr. Gilmore. This was a crucial fight, and we are proud to have helped secure this important victory.”

#

Resources: 

CAC case page in Gilmore v. Jones, et al., https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/gilmore-v-jones-et-al/  

“Two years after Charlottesville, I’m fighting the conspiracy theory industrial complex,” Brennan Gilmore, USA Today, August 11, 2019: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/08/11/charlottesville-anniversary-alex-jones-conspiracy-theorists-column/1955910001/

Alex Jones Stipulation to Liability in Gilmore v. Jones: https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Gilmore-Alex-Jones-Stipulation.pdf

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 29, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.