Jones’ lessons on First and Sixth Amendments

Many Texas jurors said during the selection process that they could not be fair in the Alex Jones case because of their belief in free speech. Which raises two important questions about a functional democracy: 1) Do people understand what defines “free speech?”

2) Why don’t Americans want to sit on juries? Yes, the second question is based on circumstantial evidence, an assumption that some members of the pool in Texas were merely saying whatever it would take to avoid becoming involved in a process that is likely to last for a few weeks.

But both matters are troubling.

First of all, the jury that was chosen Monday will be charged with determining how much Jones must pay the family of Jesse Lewis, who was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, because Jones called the massacre “staged” and “completely fake with actors,” among other things.

A Texas judge already ruled that Jones committed defamation by making the claims on his YouTube channel. Resisting serving on a jury by citing personal belief in free speech only reinforces that too many people don’t really know what it means.

“I believe people have to be accountable for what they say, but I think we are entitled to freedom of speech,” juror No. 9 said while being questioned Monday in the Travis County Courtroom.

Freedom of speech is not an umbrella that shields any utterance. In addition to defamation, the categories not protected under the

First Amendment include obscenities, genuine threats, child pornography, perjury and blackmail, among others.

There’s also an undeniable irony in clinging to the right to expression while avoiding opining on a jury.

Which brings us to the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”

You don’t need to be in the Austin courtroom right now to recognize the resistance to serving on a jury. Anyone who has been — or ever will be — summoned should consider this: It is patriotic to serve on a jury.

It represents the accused’s final hope for justice. In a nation saturation with “Law and Order” television shows, spin-offs and copycats since 1990, this is the part where jurors play a supporting role in ensuring order.

Once a jury is selected in Texas, the exercise will need to be repeated two more times in the cases Jones lost against other Sandy Hook families.

Attorney Wesley Ball, who represents Jesse Lewis’ family, eliminated some jurors by questioning whether they would be opposed to awards as high as $100 million.

Jones didn’t show up, but his attorney, Andino Reynal, offered the observation that “There is nothing I want more than for the 12 people who sit on this case to look back 20 years from now and say, ‘This is a verdict I can be proud of.’ ”

It’s asking a lot to expect a juror to be proud of a verdict. But anyone should be proud to serve on a jury.

You don’t need to be in the Austin courtroom right now to recognize the resistance to serving on a jury. Anyone who has — or ever will be — summoned should consider this: It is patriotic to serve on a jury.