Is there a factual legal answer to this? His individual contributors may not always have much money but some do and aren’t they all contributing to a conspiracy to defame the victims of the Sandy Hook shootings? Can they be called out for their participation?
Obviously anyone can sue anyone else for any reason but are there legal precedents for a case like this?
IANAL but I don’t see a legal path to suing the donors unless they left a massive paper trail saying “Here is funding specifically to keep smearing those Sandy Hook parents” and even then it’d be a helluva stretch.
But didn’t they already subpoena his financials?
I assume if there is a dispute over financials, the court can subpoena any records. Hiding income or assets in anticipation of bankruptcy or court awarded payments is a form of contempt and can result in jail. (I believe one commentator on TV referred to this as “civil contempt” but said, despite “civil” it can still earn jail time.)
I assume they subpoenaed some details, perhaps they know who these donors are already.
I have to guess about what he has said publicly in his fundraising but his end purpose sounds clear. I don’t know if there are legal protections for the donors if they are named. I’m sure they will claim free speech rights but that is not a justification for defamation, these suits would be civil matter for which only a preponderance of the evidence is required. I don’t know if there’s any way to sue them en masse but whatever money can be collected from Jones following the $billion judgement against him could fund a lot of individual suits.
I think suing his donors is a bridge too far.
In the first place, the probability that any specifically requested their money go to smearing victims is virtually nil.
Secondly, even if a court could be found to punish donors in this way, it would be a horrible precedent. Imagine various political factions egging on “victims” to sue donors to the campaigns of politicians who supported policies deemed harmful to one group or another.
Barring explicit instruction for use, the fungibility of money would be a pretty good shield for the donors here.
He’s not running for political office and I don’t think he has a PAC, there are existing protections for donations in those cases. He’s not doing either though, he engaged in a commercial enterprise that acted to defame specific individuals who were not public figures.
I don’t see the distinction in this case between Jones and his contributors.
I don’t know just what he told his fans and listeners so given any ambiguous purposes stated by him that could provide an excuse for those who funded him. I reject the notion this is protected political speech though, he clearly was running a for profit commercial enterprise and that excuse didn’t work for him in his trial.
For example, now he is calling for donations to help “fight with an appeal”. I think it would be a stretch to call this funds to explicitly spread the lies, even though that could be the net result.
Up until the trial, he was likely asking for funds to continue his media presence. Considering he rails about a plethora of stupid conspiracies and irrational views, I have trouble imagining anyone could make the connection directly between any donations and what was simply one of his many obsessions. Similarly, a lot of his funds come from selling things like hats and T-shirts and herbal supplements (the force can have a strong influence on the weak minded). It’s even harder to connect a simple business transaction as a donation specifically toward a specific conspiracy lie.
These two right here. Even if the donor specifically said that the donation was to continue the libel, there is no way to show that the specific dollars were spent on that very purpose.
Plus the fact that is would be a disastrous precedent.
First, I think it’s possible some of his co-conspirators provided him with written, and possibly recorded oral statements of support for his campaign to spread disinformation. I know that’s a tenuous connection but I would like to know what evidence would be required in a case like this.
Secondly, what is horrible about the precedent of holding people responsible for their participation in a fraudulent scheme? I thought we did that already.
I donated to the Democratic Party before the 2020 election. So any Republican could sue me for participating in a fraudulent scheme (in their minds)? The sheer number of lawsuits every election year would clog the courts to uselessness.
Big difference between “in their minds” and “found responsible in court for a billion dollars worth of damages.”
Political party and PAC contributions are already protected. Unfortunately they are not considered fraudulent enterprises.
Amn equally interesting question is whether Jones’ contributors could sue him for fraud for lying to them about the Sandy Hook shooting.
I think most of them could. It’s an excellent defense against collaboration. Without substantial evidence to the contrary they would be considered victims.
The TV commentator mentioned the award was against “Alex Jones and his company”. Presumably the company would have a harder time hiding wealth.