Jones’s brand is built upon the idea that he’s a lone crusader against the mainstream media, telling his audience bold truths about a world that he claims lies to them constantly. 

…Jones’s attorneys had to walk a tightrope in the courtroom between acknowledging that part of his persona is, in fact, an act he plays up for the cameras—lest the jury find him an unfit father—and maintaining for the sake of his audience that he actually does believe every word he says.

Now, he’s once more facing a legal challenge—and his attorneys are once more tasked with arguing that Jones doesn’t really mean what he says on his broadcasts, while also doing their best to maintain his credibility.

…Lucy Richards was sentenced to five months in prison for sending threats to Pozner and De La Rosa, accusing them of participating in a hoax and threatening their lives for it. In that case, the court found that Jones and Infowars so influenced Richards’s thinking on the matter that,  … after her release, Richards would “be prohibited from viewing Infowars programming.”

…There are plenty of ethical questions worth asking about Infowars with regard to these cases. Chief among them: does a media company that spreads inaccurate information, without citing its sources or attempting to run basic diligence (like reverse image searches), about private citizens like Fontaine bear responsibility for threats made by its readers?

Alex Jones’s Attorneys Argue That No Reasonable Person Would Believe What He Says – Texas Monthly

hmmm