Sandy Hook Families Seek Control of Alex Jones’ Social Media Accounts
Families of the Sandy Hook massacre victims have petitioned a bankruptcy court to seize Alex Jones’s X account as part of the effort to liquidate his assets. The account, which has over 2.3 million followers, is seen by the families as a valuable asset that Jones uses to generate profit and reach customers. They argue it should be treated like any other business asset being liquidated.
This request follows Jones’s 2022 bankruptcy filing and his agreement to liquidate assets to pay the $1.5 billion owed to the families of 20 students and six staff members killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The families claim that Jones’s social media activity is integral to the Infowars business, which is being dissolved to settle his debts.
The families believe that Jones has used his social media account to undermine the value of Infowars by diverting sales to his father’s health supplement company, DrJonesNaturals.com. Jones’s attorney, Vickie Driver, responded to the request by saying, “The Connecticut Plaintiffs never wanted money from Jones but to silence him.”
Jones’s X account, previously banned for nearly five years, was reinstated in December following a user poll conducted by the platform’s owner, Elon Musk. The reinstatement has allowed Jones to continue his online activities, which the families argue is detrimental to the liquidation process.
The request to seize Jones’s social media accounts is set to be heard by a US bankruptcy judge in Houston on Friday. The judge is expected to convert Jones’s bankruptcy case from Chapter 11, which gives him more control, to Chapter 7, which allows for a court-appointed trustee to manage and liquidate his assets.
The outcome of this hearing will be significant, as it will determine whether Jones’s online presence can be leveraged to pay off his substantial debt to the Sandy Hook families. The families are determined to ensure that Jones does not use his social media platform to continue profiting while avoiding his financial obligations.
MSGLeo
Why weren’t his comments protected under the first amendment?