The single strongest anti-Jones argument I can give you is that one of his co-hosts basically doxed one of the family members live on air, because said family member was having some sort of row with the show, because Alex for a while had been claiming that some members of the families never lost kids at all. This resulted in some crazy fan going to their house and harassing them, and then getting a bunch of death threats, causing them to sell the home and move.

In that case of one comment against one family member, there are genuinely arguable damages. But it wasn't by Jones himself, it was by his co-host. The question there would be whether he approved of it, but I don't know that, and Jones didn't say that he did, but Jones didn't stop it either.

There is another time when Alex argued that the way that one of the fathers behaved at a funeral for his kid suggested he didn't lose the kid (because he laughed and cried within a few moments of each other). You might be able to argue some kind of emotional distress from that. Considering that even though I never watched Info Wars, even I had heard people claiming that on Reddit, it seems like that could be legitimate claim of a damaged reputation.

And that's it. That's literally all I've got for you. There was no trial, so I can't go into actual details on any specific claim. You'll notice I didn't mention and defamed FBI agents either.

JP Morgan Chase monopolized and manipulated the entire world financial market in Gold and Silver for 8 years, engaged in criminal misconduct and monopolistic practices, probably robbing people of billions of dollars. They were given a fine $40 million less than what Jones has received from just the damages in this verdict. The jury may still come back with compensatory damages. He may be fined even more than Pfizer was for it's criminal misconduct ($2.5 billion) when all is said and done.

Does that sound fair for my steelman argument?

The single strongest anti-Jones argument I can give you is that one of his co-hosts basically doxed one of the family members live on air, because said family member was having some sort of row with the show, because Alex for a while had been claiming that some members of the families never lost kids at all. This resulted in some crazy fan going to their house and harassing them, and then getting a bunch of death threats, causing them to sell the home and move.

In that case of one comment against one family member, there are genuinely arguable damages. But it wasn't by Jones himself, it was by his co-host. The question there would be whether he approved of it, but I don't know that, and Jones didn't say that he did, but Jones didn't stop it either.

There is another time when Alex argued that the way that one of the fathers behaved at a funeral for his kid suggested he didn't lose the kid (because he laughed and cried within a few moments of each other). You might be able to argue some kind of emotional distress from that. Considering that even though I never watched Info Wars, even I had heard people claiming that on Reddit, it seems like that could be legitimate claim of a damaged reputation.