Thorny problem. The right to free speech doesn’t include the right to freedom from consequences of what you say. If somebody damages your reputation with lies then you have the right to seek damages: and I’m sure we wouldn’t want things any other way. The lying main stream press ought to be held to account for the harm they are causing, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I’m afraid.

I believe Jones was accused of stating the events were fake and victims were crisis actors. If not true then that statement hurts the reputation and material prospects of innocent people. The court clearly determined that he couldn’t support every exact word and that somebody thereby got hurt. That isn’t the same as deciding SH wasn’t a false flag, but it will be spun that way of course.

The problem for Jones is that libel law favours the plaintiff, which is why journalists have to be absolutely meticulous. The bulk of what he said could be true but one slip up where he says something he can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt could be considered defamatory.