Jones appeals sanctions

Webcast tirade against Sandy Hook parents’ lawyer leads to consequences

Norm Pattis, who is defending conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in a lawsuit brought by the parents of some of the children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, has asked the state Supreme Court to review a trial judge’s decision to impose sanctions on Jones.

Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis imposed the sanctions June 18 after finding that Jones’ incendiary tirade on his webcast against Christopher Mattei, a lawyer representing the Sandy Hook families, was “an intentional, calculated act of rage for his viewing audience” and that Jones made threats toward Mattei.

Pattis, in his filing with the Supreme Court, argues that Bellis is penalizing Jones for exercising his First Amendment right to speak on a matter of public interest, and that she has unfairly prevented him from taking advantage of a special law to seek to have the lawsuit against him dismissed.

In his televised rant, Jones revealed that child pornography was contained in emails he provided to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and accused Mattei and his law firm, Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, of planting the images. The FBI investigated and said the child pornography was sent to Jones from outside his organization and that no one opened or viewed the images. The images were transferred from Jones to Mattei’s law firm as part of the disclosure process in the civil lawsuit.

Koskoff, Koskoff & Beider asked for an emergency hearing, which took place June 18, and revealed the firm had received threats and had hired a police officer to stand guard in the law firm’s lobby. Subsequent to her order on June 18, Bellis filed a notice that she had been informed by state police that she was the target of threats by people who posted to Jones’ website.

“Despite the clear requirements of Brandenberg vs. Ohio … holding that speech, even hateful and vile speech, enjoys first amendment protection unless it incites imminent unlawful action, the trial court entered serious sanctions against Alex Jones and Infowars for a televised rant that posed no such threat or harm,” Pattis wrote. “Succumbing to the histrionic posturing of the plaintiffs’ lawyers in a lawsuit attacking the defendants’ rights to speak freely about the Sandy Hook shootings in Newtown in 2012, the court twice eviscerated freedom of speech: first, by sanctioning Mr. Jones for protected speech; second, by refusing even to hear his special motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against him by the Sandy Hook families. This shocking departure from well-settled first amendment principles, done abruptly and without adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, requires review.”

In her ruling June 18, Bellis barred Jones and his co-defendants from using a relatively new Connecticut law that provides for an expedited means of seeking a dismissal of lawsuits that target parties for exercising their rights to free speech in connection with matters of public concern. She also ordered that Jones pay for any legal fees associated with the child pornography.

The judge’s sanction is not reasonable, Pattis argues, because it “effectively imposes a death penalty” on Jones’ right to pursue a special motion to dismiss under the new law. The new law, Pattis writes, “was designed to enhance the freedom of the press, amplifying protected speech like a bullhorn; but in Bellis’ hands, that bullhorn had become a muzzle. An anxious nation watches to see whether this assault on free speech will stand.”

Some Sandy Hook families and first responders have sued Jones for claiming the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School that claimed the lives of 20 first graders and six educators was a hoax, and argue that he profited by spreading the hoax claim. The lawsuit says Jones accuses family members of being actors, stating as fact the shooting was a hoax and inciting others to act on those claims all because it was good for his ratings, drew advertisers and made him money.

David Owens can be reached at dowens@courant.com.