Alex Jones’s website Infowars.com reportedly gets 22 million visitors a month. Based on this traffic, Alex Jones is a bona fide member of the press, and of course, a media commentator and talk show host. Alex may be an alternative media publisher, but with his reach and influence, it needs to be established that he and Infowars.com are a legitimate media outlet. It appears that there has been an orchestrated campaign by the media to cancel a competitor, Alex Jones and Infowars. Alex Jones has been banned from social media platforms and targeted by the cancel culture. Is this an antitrust violation, are we dealing with a media monopoly that needs to be broken up?
The legal system has not taken up that question. Instead, Alex Jones was recently skewered in a made for television show trial, first in Texas, then in Connecticut, which according to legal experts, violated multiple norms of rules of evidence and legal procedures. If there is any justice left, then these trials will get reversed at the higher courts. The most recent disgrace came when his trial in Connecticut resulted in a billion dollars in damages in a defamation lawsuit.
What was Alex Jones’s crime?
Some years back Jones had reported on the Sandy Hook shooting. In doing so, as a commentator, he discussed an internet rumor that those involved were crises actors and the shooting was essentially a hoax. Jones later denounced this theory and apologized.
The courts decided that Jones is required to indemnify, which means to make whole, the families of the victims. Somehow, courts in two states determined that his statements and commentary caused losses to the parents of the children, in the millions, and apparently, a billion dollars. That’s right, someone making statements in public that hurts the feelings of grieving parents and family members, damaged the families to the tune of a billion dollars. That is a lot of indemnification. Almost seems like someone is trying to make a point.
Do the grieving parents of those that died in Iraq, a war promoted under false claims of weapons of mass destruction, have a claim against government controlled media monopolies that lied the United States into war? Never mind….
Let’s focus on a more contemporary situation. Media monopolies and big tech monopolies received a billion dollars from the federal government to promote Covid shots, and apparently censor information about the risks involved with these shots, thereby denying informed consent.
Does this violate federal law?
U.S. Code 21 Section 50.23 and 50.24 require informed consent even for emergency use authorized experimental treatments. Informed consent is a concept embedded in western medicine and was Codified in the Nuremberg Code, as well as the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, which the United State considers itself bound. There are also many state laws that require informed consent.
There may also be issues regarding fraud and willful harm. The Pfizer clinical trial conducted from December 1, 2020 to Feb 28, 2021 showed approximately a thousand side effects, 1223 deaths, 42,000 adverse cases, and 158,000 adverse incidents. This information was made available to the government in April of 2021, before the wide spread roll out of the Covid gene therapy shots. The clinical trial data became public when a court ruled in favor of a Canadian Physician’s Group for Transparency. This information became public in November of 2021.
Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook have routinely censored information regarding potential harms from Covid gene therapy shots, prior to, and after the Pfizer clinical trials were made public, in November of 2021. Facebook enjoys immunity from civil liability because it is considered a platform, not a publisher. However, once Facebook engaged in censorship of medical information and potential harms arising from experimental gene therapy shots, it then began acting like a publisher, and should be subject to the same laws. Furthermore, it begins to look like fraud when a product that clearly causes harm is referred to as safe and effective. Pfizer’s clinical trials showed that there were substantial risks to taking these experimental gene therapy shots.
