The Truth vs. Alex Jones

2024

Action / Crime / Documentary

21
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 100% · 15 reviews
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 80% · 50 ratings
IMDb Rating 7.5/10 10 1931 1.9K

Director

Top cast

Donald Trump as Self - 2016 Republican Presidential Candidate
Alex Jones as Self
720p.WEB 1080p.WEB
1.06 GB
1280*534
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
1 hr 57 min
Seeds 43
2.17 GB
1920*800
English 5.1
NR
23.976 fps
1 hr 57 min
Seeds 82

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Mark_H_Smit 8 / 10

Disturbing doc shows the danger of pathological dishonesty

This documentary puts a magnifying glass on one of the biggest challenges faced by civil society today: the extent to which online media platforms make money by spreading scandalous lies over the heads of innocent people. How pathological liars like Alex Jones are able to benefit from dishonesty for a decade before two juries finally punish him for his evil acts.

Watching Alex Jones lie under oath is extremely disturbing. The documentary seems to draw the conclusion that money is Jones' only driver. But watching Jones' testimony, it became obvious to me that Jones' behavior is pathological. As the end credits rolled I was wondering why his lawyers didn't make him plea mental insanity.

Just as disturbing is the epilogue that mentions that InfoWars still broadcasts in March 2024 despite Jones' record breaking verdicts.

I found the documentary revealing while at the same time leaving it up to the viewer to judge what they think of Jones. I felt it could have touched even more on the dangers of InfoWars' lies to society as a whole - this doc clearly focused on the Sandy Hook story only.

For me the doc served as a reminder that pathological liars pose an extreme danger to society. It makes me fear the worst considering the role that AI will undoubtedly have in enabling even more powerful messaging platforms. How can democracies legislate to keep such tools out of the hands of pathological liars and obvious narcissists like Jones and Trump, Perhaps AI can one day be used to detect and warn against these obviously sick people.

Reviewed by tuggerwaugh 9 / 10

The only actor in this is Jones himself

One of the biggest ironies in this whole tragedy is Alex Jones claiming the Sandy Hook families faked and acted the whole thing - when Jones himself is just an actor. And not a very good one.

He is a charlatan who preys on a vulnerable audience to make money.

This is a great documentary which shows the rise of fringe groups that have sucked in a group of people who doesn't even believe in basic science. A decent percentage of the population really needs to grow up and learn from this whole situation.

Grifters will always grift but they can't if they don't have a market.

I just feel so sorry for all the families and victims who lost everything and those poor children who were robbed of their future while a redneck continues to con people without any remorse or guilt for what he is doing or what he has done.

Reviewed by classicalsteve 10 / 10

The First Amendment Does Not Cover Baseless Defamation

Alex Jones has asserted that the lawsuits against him concerning his bogus claims that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Dec, 2012, violate his Free Speech rights. He has also claimed that the removal of his videos on Youtube or Facebook also violated his First Amendment Rights. Or if someone challenges his views, that's also a violation of the First Amendment. Wrong.

Here's what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

So freedom of speech is about prohibiting any government of the US, from a city council to the US Congress, passing a law to prohibit freedom of speech and/or press. This does not mean that a private company such as Youtube or Facebook are somehow prohibited from denying someone their point of view on anything at anytime. In the case of Alex Jones, if individuals find his views objectionable and/or are harmed by them, that somehow they are violating his rights to speech if they protest or file a lawsuit. Yes, most free speech is protected from government intervention but they may be subject to defamation lawsuits if proved to be false and/or harmful.

This documentary is about the defamation lawsuits and trials against Alex Jones and InfoWars who repeatedly for now going on 10+ years claimed that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary was somehow a hoax and the grieving parents were actors, and the city of Sandy Hook staged the event. And if anyone was harmed by his assertions, they have no case because Jones is protected by the First Amendment. Again wrong.

Yes, an individual does have the right to propagate just about anything they desire without government hindrance, more or less, but there are limitations including injunctions as a result of due process of law. For example, yelling "Fire" in a packed movie theater when there is no fire is not protected under the First Amendment. Also, anyone making false claims can be subject to a civil lawsuit and/or trial if they propagate falsehoods and people are harmed by such propagation. There are yet others such as leaking classified government documents. Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers was going to be tried for the leak in a criminal case which was eventually dismissed. (I'm sounding like someone with a law degree!)

The parents of the slain children at Sandy Hook Elementary filed two defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones when for 10 years he claimed that no child actually died at SH Elem late 2012, the parents were actors, and the activities of law enforcement and EMT's were all staged. Why? Because, according to Jones, it was a left-wing hoax designed to motivate the US Government to pass laws to take away people's guns.

In fact, in the wake of the shooting, a loophole in the law about gun control was put up for a vote by the US Congress, insisted upon by then President Barack Obama. Five Republican Senators who were pressured by the NRA and other pro-gun groups voted against it, fearing retaliation in a primary. So, even if Jones was correct about the shooting being a hoax to promote the ultimate prohibition of guns, which of course it wasn't, the "hoax" failed miserably.

These parents for over 10 years have been harassed, being accused of being liars and at worst experiencing death threats. I know one parent continually moved under false names and was still "found" by conspiracy fantasists. One of the most poignant moments of the doc is when one of the parents talked to someone who noticed her pendant as a memorial to her child. She was asked about it and the mother explained it was for her child who died at Sandy Hook. To which this person said "They said it was a hoax" (I'm paraphrasing). I would be really curious who this "they" that were referring to. Obviously most likely Alex Jones on his InfoWars.

One item which should be noted but hasn't actually been addressed: it is a serious crime, a felony no less, to impersonate a police officer or a government official. So Jones was also alleging that the police officers and government officials who arrived on the scene are all actors. If so, Jones should have pressed that these people also be arrested.

I think the term "conspiracy theory" should be substituted with a new term: "Conspiracy Fantasy". There are conspiracy theories which have proved to be true, such as the Watergate scandal which began as a theory based on the reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. A real theory is based on concrete evidence, only the "theory" designation means that there is no means to prove something to be absolutely true or could be refuted with new evidence. When government officials under then President Nixon admitted to the Watergate break-in and the ensuing cover-up, the "theory' became fact. The Watergate Scandal is no longer regarded as a conspiracy theory but a fact.

Jones did not create a theory about the Sandy Hook shooting based on hardcore investigation and evidence. He didn't interview the parents, he didn't interview the police officers and government officials who arrived on the scene. So far as I know he never even visited Sandy Hook in Connecticut. He concocted a "fantasy conspiracy" and then found tiny bits and pieces to somehow prove that Sandy Hook never happened.

One of the saddest moments of the incident was Robbie Parker's speech a day after the shooting. His daughter Emilie was one of the slain children. But it ended up being one of the nuttiest pieces of "evidence" offered by Jones. When Parker went up to the microphone he was shocked to see all the reporters and onlookers. He had never been in such a spotlight before. He then made a brief chuckle out of embarrassment. (I have been a performing musician for several decades and I know what he was going through. I still get nervous when I get out on stage.)

But Jones propagated on InfoWars that Parker's "chuckle" proved he was in fact an actor who never had a daughter. One question I've always had for Jones: if these people were all trained actors as he claimed, where did they get their training? What degrees had they earned? AFI in Los Angeles? Juilliard? Yale School of Drama? Had they appeared in theater, commercials, TV shows or even movies?

If Jones was really a diligent reporter and journalist, wouldn't he feel obligated to find which acting schools and work these people had on their resumes since he claimed there were "trained actors". Parker in particular claimed he had never been in front of an audience before his speech. He was just a grief-stricken father trying to cope with the loss of his daughter. Even though it goes without saying: he is not an actor. And Jones is not a journalist but a political entertainer. Period.

Read more IMDb reviews

57 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment