ACCEPTED 03-19-00811-CV 40902128 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/18/2020 4:11 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK NO. 03-19-00811-CV FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS, AUSTIN, TEXAS USTIN EXAS A , T 2/18/2020 8:00:00 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk ALEX E. JONES, INFOWARS, LLC, FREE SPEECH SYSTEMS, LLC, AND OWEN SHROYER, Appellants, v. NEIL HESLIN, Appellee On Appeal from the 53rd District Court, Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-18-001835 APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF T. Wade Jefferies David J. Sacks THE LAW FIRM OF T. WADE JEFFERIES SACKS LAW FIRM State Bar No. 00790962 State Bar No. 17505700 401 Congress Ave., Suite 1540 2323 S. Shepherd, Suite 825 Austin, TX 78701 Houston, TX 77019 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: (512) 201-2727 Telephone: (713) 863-8400 Facsimile: (512) 687-3499 Facsimile: (713) 863-0502 Counsel for Appellants Lead Counsel for Appellants ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED NO. 03-19-00811-CV TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................iv INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 7 I. APPELLEE’S DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER THE TCPA. ................................................................ 7 A. Appellant’s Statements are Protected Expressions of Opinion. .......... 10 B. Appellants’ statements are Protected under the Substantial Truth Doctrine. .................................................................................... 14 C. Appellants’ Statements are Protected under the Fair Comment Privilege. .............................................................................................. 19 D. Appellants’ Statements are Constitutionally Protected and Have Not Been Waived. ............................................................................... 21 PRAYER .................................................................................................................. 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 22 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 22 INDEX OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................... APPENDIX 1: Order Denying Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) Motion to Dismiss, dated October 18, 2019 (CR:3286- 3287) .................................................................. Appendix 1 APPENDIX 2: June 25, 2017 iBankcoin publication: “MEGYN KELLY FAILS TO FACT CHECK SANDY HOOK FATHER’S CONTRADICTORY CLAIM IN ALEX JONES HIT PIECE” (CR:1395-1399) ........................................... Appendix 2 APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Page ii NO. 03-19-00811-CV APPENDIX 3: June 25, 2017 ZeroHedge publication: “Megyn Kelly Fails To Fact Check Sandy Hook Father’s Contradictory Claim In Alex Jones Hit Piece” (CR:1400-1403) ...... Appendix 3 APPENDIX 4: June 25, 2017 broadcast with Owen Shroyer: Commenting on the ZeroHedge publication titled “Megyn Kelly Fails To Fact Check Sandy Hook Father’s Contradictory Claim In Alex Jones Hit Piece” (CR:1102 [thumb drive containing the video of Owen Shroyer’s entire June 25, 2017 broadcast], CR:1104-1130 [transcript of Owen Shroyer’s entire June 25, 2017, ninety (90) minute, video broadcast], CR:1109-1110 [specific portions of the June 25, 2017 transcript commenting on the ZeroHedge publication]) ............ Appendix 4 APPENDIX 5: July 20, 2017 broadcast with Alex Jones: Commenting on the censor of the Owen Shroyer June 25, 2017 broadcast that commented on the ZeroHedge publication titled “Megyn Kelly Fails To Fact Check Sandy Hook Father’s Contradictory Claim In Alex Jones Hit Piece” (CR:1103 [thumb drive containing the video of Alex Jones’s entire July 20, 2017 broadcast], CR:1034-1101 [transcript of Alex Jones’s entire July 20, 2017, three (3) hour, video broadcast]) .............................................. Appendix 5 APPENDIX 6: Affidavit of Alex E. Jones from Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss under TCPA (CR:801-804) .......................... Appendix 6 APPENDIX 7: Affidavit of Owen Shroyer from Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss under TCPA (CR:1390-1403) ...................... Appendix 7 APPENDIX 8: June 26, 2017 rebroadcast of portions of Owen Shroyer’s June 25, 2017 broadcast (CR:2811) ........................... Appendix 8 APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Page iii NO. 03-19-00811-CV INDEX OF AUTHORITIES United States Supreme Court Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) ...........................................21 New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ..................................................21 Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) ....................................................................17 Texas Supreme Court Bos v. Smith, 556 S.W.3d 293 (Tex.2018) ...............................................................20 Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Tex.1989) .................................................10 D Magazine Partners, L.P. v. Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d 429 (Tex.2017) ........... 19, 20 Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Tatum, 554 S.W.3d 614 (Tex.2018) ..... 11, 12, 13, 14 Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex.2013)............................................... 17, 18, 19 Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103 (Tex.2000) .................................18 Texas Courts of Appeal Avila v. Larrea, 394 S.W.3d 646 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2012, pet. denied) ............... 16 Farias v. Garza, 426 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 2014, pet. denied) ...... 11 SEIU, Local 5 v. Prof'l Janitorial Serv. of Houston, Inc., 415 S.W.3d 387 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d) ................................................ 15 Other Lizotte v. Welker, 45 Conn. Supp. 217, 709 A.2d 50 (Conn. Super. Ct 1996) ........11 Sands N., Inc. v. City of Anchorage, 537 F.Supp.2d 1042 (D. Alaska 2007) ..........15 Rules and Statutes Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §27.002 ....................................................................21 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §27.005 ..................................................................2, 3 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §73.002 ....................................................................19 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §73.005 ............................................................. 14, 16 Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct Rule 3.03 ......................................................... 4 Tex. R. App. P. §10.1 ................................................................................................. 5 APPELLANTS’ BRIEF Page iv INTRODUCTION This case has been clarified and simplified. Appellee is not suing Owen Shroyer for his broadcast that took place on June 25, 2017.1 Appellee is complaining about the rebroadcast of a portion of the June 25, 2017 broadcast that was posted on Free Speech Systems, LLC’s website, www.infowars.com, on June 26, 2017 and was rebroadcasted on July 20, 2017. (Appellee’s brief at 4, 8).2 Therefore, Appellee’s suit against Appellants is limited to the June 26, 2017 and the July 20, 2017 rebroadcasts of portions of the Owen Shroyer June 25, 2017 broadcast. (Appellee’s brief at 8). The Appellee’s claims are reduced and therefore the analysis on appeal is more focused. The de novo review is of the June 26, 2017 and July 20, 2017 rebroadcasts. (See CR:2811[Appendix 8]). The thumb drives containing all video of this case has been transferred to the Court, pursuant to the January 22, 2020 transfer order. In contesting Appellants’ affirmative defenses, Appellee asks the Court to rely upon objected to affidavits from advocates for their positions who have made improper legal conclusions and offered many unreliable opinions they hope the 1 Appellant Shroyer conducted a live broadcast on Sunday, June 25, 2017. (CR:734, fn.67, CR:1391,¶4 [Shroyer Affidavit, Appendix 7]). The Court is asked to take judicial notice that June 25, 2017 was a Sunday and June 26, 2017 (the date the Appellee complains) was a Monday. Appellant Shroyer’s first sentence on the show in question was “This is Sunday broadcast of the Alex Jones Show.” (CR:1104 [Appendix 4, at p.2]). 2 June 26, 2017 rebroadcast of portions of the Owen Shroyer June 25, 2017 broadcast. (CR:2811[video][Appendix 8]). Also rebroadcasted on July 20, 2017. See Appendix 5. NO. 03-19-00811-CV Court will simply rely upon. Instead of that approach, Appellants request that the Court makes its independent, de novo review of the rebroadcasts and make its own legal conclusions pertaining to the rebroadcasts.3 Appellants believe the Court will conclude that Owen Shroyer’s comments on the June 26, 2017 and July 20, 2017 rebroadcasts were constitutionally protected opinions, fair comment, and or a substantially accurate report and protected questioning raised by the ZeroHedge article focusing on Megyn Kelly and NBC. As reflected in the order denying Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss (which is attached as Appendix 1 to Appellants’ brief), the trial court issued a discovery sanction in paragraph 2. (CR:3286)[Appendix 1]). Appellee has suggested that this paragraph in the order is dispositive of the case. Appellee is in error. The discovery sanction merely relieves the