Lets talk a bit about Alex Jones. I think his case is an extremely interesting one that touches upon free speech.

I set up a question on twitter the other day where I wanted to see what the general response from Hivers would be on the case he lost where Infowars was fined with 1 billion USD.
I have been following Alex for almost 15 years now and he was one of the people that intrigued me the most during my search for "truth" in my high school and early college days.

His approach was compelling at the time to a young mind. He was someone that oozed enthusiasm and certainty in all he said. Something that wasnt the case with any other journalist at the time (if you can call him that).
That was in a way seductive as committing to certainty is much easier than actually having to put in effort and research everything.
Not until I was introduced to the class where we were taught the scientific process, what a hypothesis is, what a theory was, inductive and deductive reasoning... etc. did I realize how misplaced the attention I was giving to conspiracy theories was.

From there I was able to explain the conspiracy way of thinking very simply:

1. Make up a conclusion you want.
2. Does it fit my overall narrative?
3. Is it earthshattering enough?
4. Proclaim the conclusion with certainty.

"If something I want to be true, could be true, it must be true."

Its an irrational way of thinking, thats not unique only to conspiracies, based on nothing but guesswork and wishful thinking. There was also the seductive notion of having "secret", "hidden" knowledge that no one else had which made you special that appealed to people.

Alex went through a few phases, some more fun than others. At this point I was watching him like I watch the "Ancient Aliens" show. It was all nonsense yet entertaining.
You had his "bohemian grove" phase. His "911 was an inside job" phase, His "Joker-Obama is a muslim that wants to destroy the world" phase, "Pizzagate" phase, his "gun" phase", "Stop the steal phase", etc.

Some of these things were simply right wing talking points turned up to 11 and some were utter lunacy.
The introduction of the right wing talking points brought him to the mainstream and it gave him an audience of people that were no longer simply solitary loonies that felt disenfranchised and marginalized by the system.

All in all I consider Alex Jones utter poison and the worst of the worst when it comes to Fake News.
What eludes me is why so many of those that attack CNN, MSNBC or "MSM" apply none of the same scrutiny to him. MSM is a dishonest term used often by those that are actually bigger and more popular by any given metric than who they paint as being MSM.

I know of no one like Alex that makes such extraordinary claims with such consistency with no evidence whatsoever, or even when evidence is to the contrary, yet he is exempt of the same level of scrutiny as CNN, FOX, BBC, etc.

These big networks function in a different way.

1. They have their biases and agendas.
2. They create a pool of specific facts that push the narrative in their wanted direction.
3. They omit all other facts that counter their narrative.
4. They very rarely outright lie. (The "Russian collusion" story they ran for years being an obvious exception)

Heres an example:

During the BLM riots, CNN didnt say that nothing was happening. What they did do is play down the gravity of. A riot wasnt a riot, it was a "protest". A burning building wasnt a violent riot it was "a MOSTLY peaceful protest."
The rioters were justified by them, stories about struggle and injustice were pushed.

On the other side of things you have the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Tucker Carlson, or Daily Wire (Owens, Walsh, Shapiro) are either ignoring what is happening, ignoring the murder, rape, not covering the story, or they are downplaying the war by sharing stories about how Ukranians are going to the beach this summer during a war. How Ghost of Kyiv is not real. How there are Nazis in Ukraine. How NATO is at fault not the aggressor.. Biden sending weapons is bad but Russians threatening nukes isn't discussed. etc.

So these networks dont outright lie often (although they do that as well) as much as they create a portfolio of facts that suits them, overexaggerate them, and omit everything else.

"See those Ukranians swimming? What war?"

Alex Jones operates differently. He presents unconfirmed absurd claims and exaggerates them often keeping them vague and broad. You have people like Assange that actually uncover and expose things, present factual documents and focus on specifics. Facts being a focus. Alex Jones uncovers nothing and exposes nothing. He is a preacher preaching from a book of conspiracy fiction.

NICK SANDMAN:

In 2020 CNN and other networks were held accountable for how they painted the Nick Sandman kid. The way they presented the story, they made it appear as if Nick was the one to blame for the incident. He sued them for 250 million and settled for a smaller sum still counted in millions of dollars. By some estimates multiple millions of dollars.

Now... When that news dropped, do you guys remember how it was painted on the right and by many of those that are upset with the Alex Jones lawsuit.

"Good, fake news got what they deserved. Fake news is being held accountable for their lies".

They were mocked, Sandman was celebrated.

MSM was being made an example of.

If you compare that case to what Alex Jones did, the difference is striking.
Nick Sandman stood in place and basically nothing of note happened that day while Sandy Hook was a tragedy where 26 people, most of them children 6 years of age, were shot to death.

CNN painted Nick Sandman as an arrogant teen. Alex Jones painted the parents of the dead kids as liars complicit in a grand conspiracy to take away his rights.

Some of the things he did and said:

He doxxed a dead kids parent.
He blamed the parents for faking it, being actors and being complicit in a grand conspiracy that had a goal of taking away his rights. He called it all a hoax.
From there his viewers desecrated the kids graves, after a parent killed himself they harassed the family calling his death a hoax. Without a doubt Alex Jones and InfoWars were directly and indirectly responsible for further ruining these peoples lives.

Now, I have a few questions to pose:

Should networks that openly lie, spread misinformation be held accountable for their actions or should free speech protect them?

At what point do you think the line should be drawn? Or should there be no line? Should we hold fake news accountable when its clear their coverage has a unjust and clear affect on the target lives like is the case with InfoWars where they defamed the parents? Should that only apply to Networks or should it apply to those that clearly are the ones inventing the fake news? Do you support the judgement, but think the fine is too high?
Should Alex Jones be in the clear but rather Infowars the one prosecuted?