>His speech isn't being suppressed. The government didn't arrest him. He's being sued for damages he caused to the families of the victims he lied about. That's as American as it gets.
I'd add that he is still free to continue lying forever. No one is stopping him from doing so.
>That ... may remain to be seen. Though it does seem to presently be the case.
What legal mechanism might someone use to stop Alex Jones from saying whatever the hell he wants?
I mean, sure, a bullet to the brain or a successful car bomb would shut him up, but that's murder.
IIUC (IANAL), Alex Jones can, while in the United States (with certain very limited exceptions), say whatever he feels like saying.
If he defames someone (in the case we're discussing here, the families of children killed in Newtown, CT in 2012), they are also free (as they did) to sue him for such defamation.
What, exactly, do you see changing with respect to the current status quo? What legal basis would you base such changes on?
In preparing this reply, I noted this comment[0] of yours which reads, in part:
I'm not sure this covers all cases of consequential burdening, but
it does seem to cover many of them. A future prohibition on speech,
gag order, banning from online or broadcast services, etc., might
be a harder case to make, though these could still be seen as
sanctions on behaviour rather than content.
I am unclear as to how any of that could happen under US civil law. There certainly are examples of such orders in criminal cases, but very different rules/laws/regimes apply between the two.
Unless Jones is criminally charged, I don't see how any of that could happen in a civil legal proceeding in the US.
Are you taking the idea that "speech has consequences" to its logical extreme and hypothesizing that private actors may curtail Jones' access to media?
I'd say that doesn't stop him from pontificating about anything on a bar stool (unless the bar owners don't like it and throw him out) or on his own private property.
Or are you hypothesizing that laws will change and his defamation activity will be criminalized?
If I misunderstand your point (always a possibility), my apologies. I'd just like to understand the mechanism(s) you're alluding to that could result in someone "stopping him from doing so[1]".
N.B.: I'll say it again: IANAL. Also, I find Jones' behavior reprehensible and hope he ends up destitute and living in a cardboard box under a highway overpass.
One example might be legal injunctions, which could prohibit specific actions directly. These may be temporary or permanent, and are generally applied through civil law.
In cases of professional or corporate misconduct, individuals may be stripped of professional certification (e.g., law, medical, or engineering licences), or barred from participating in specific roles within an organisation. An example, also from a civil (rather than criminal) case is this temporary bar against participating in hedge-fund activities:
A third possibility might be to have a mandate that a representative of the plaintiff's be granted a board seat, editorial oversight, or some similar role in any future media role held by Alex Jones. I'm not aware of any specific similar instance, though lawsuits seeking, e.g., board representation, have been filed. See:
In cases of cybercrime there are many instances of punishments (typically criminal law in this case) of defendants being barred from Internet access. That seems to have somewhat fallen from favour though I believe it's still practiced. A 2003 discussion:
Late edit: Another example of extant prior restraint would be prepublication review, a process which applies to members of the intelligence and justice communities. I just heard a mention of it during a Fresh Air interview of Geoffrey Berman. It's described (for the NSA/CSS) here:
I'd add that he is still free to continue lying forever. No one is stopping him from doing so.