Civil and Human Rights

TV (CBS-19): Judge hears motions to dismiss in Alex Jones defamation case

Attorneys for online conspiracy theorists including Infowars website founder Alex Jones were in federal court in Charlottesville on Tuesday asking a judge to dismiss a defamation lawsuit.

The defense attorneys say their clients are protected by the First Amendment, but attorneys for the man who brought the suit disagree.

The suit, filed in March by plaintiff Brennan Gilmore, alleges that Jones and his co-defendants damaged Gilmore by concocting conspiracy theories claiming that Gilmore was involved in the Aug. 12, 2017 car attack after he shared his video of the incident online.

In court, attorneys for the defendants argued the case should be thrown out because the federal court does not have jurisdiction.

They cited statements from the online articles that they claimed were evidence that the defendants were using obvious exaggerations rather than making serious claims about Gilmore.

They also claimed Gilmore is a “limited purpose public figure” because of his statements to the media after he made his video public. Public figures have to cross a higher threshold to prove defamation.

Gilmore’s attorneys argued that Gilmore was a private figure until the conspiracy articles began, and they said the articles would lead readers to believe the statements about Gilmore were meant literally.

Judge Norman Moon is considering the arguments before issuing a ruling on the defense motions, and outside court after the hearing, attorneys for both sides explained their positions.

Attorney Aaron Walker, who is representing several defendants, called the suit an abuse of the First Amendment.

“Many statements are very clearly opinion,” he said. “Often [there are] opinions you might find offensive, but the First Amendment doesn’t just protect speech you agree with; it protects speech you disagree with.”

Gilmore’s attorney Elizabeth Wydra disagreed.

“This is just something that is not acceptable,” she said. “It’s not protected by the First Amendment, to make up lies about an everyday citizen who is contributing to meaningful civil discourse in this divided time by sharing his witness to history.”

Gilmore says he’s lost friends and job opportunities and has received death threats. He says he filed the suit not only for himself but also to protect others.

“I just want to ensure that the next person who finds himself in that position, that they don’t have to suffer the same injury that I suffered,” he said. “And that’s why we’re here today. We’re looking forward to the process.”

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
January 20, 2020

OP-ED: To fulfill Martin Luther King’s Jr’s dream, we must address police racism and brutality

Sacramento Bee (McClatchy News Service)
More than a half-century after Dr. King’s death, discriminatory policing persists. Racial profiling, time and...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
December 2, 2019

Abortion-Rights Groups Weigh in on SCOTUS Privileges Fight

Bloomberg Law
Admitting privileges law imposes significant burdens Provides no benefits, briefs say
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo

In June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision to uphold Louisiana’s Act 620, a law which requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at...
Civil and Human Rights
November 7, 2019

Appeals court says Charlottesville lawsuit against InfoWars can continue

The Daily Progress
A defamation lawsuit against InfoWars and other far-right blogs will move forward after the U.S....
Civil and Human Rights
November 6, 2019

RELEASE: Fourth Circuit Denies Alex Jones’s Appeal: Gilmore Lawsuit Proceeds to Discovery

Brennan Gilmore was subjected to false and defamatory conspiracy theories by InfoWars’ Alex Jones and...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American–Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc.

In Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American–Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc., the Supreme Court is considering whether 42 U.S.C. § 1981—which guarantees all persons, regardless of race, the same right to make...