Alex Jones vs. Piers Morgan: Who was Worse? In the contemporary landscape where information disseminates at an unprecedented pace, the repercussions of spreading disinformation have come under intense scrutiny, particularly when propagated by influential figures. Two cases that epitomize this issue are those of Piers Morgan and Alex Jones, both of whom have faced public and, in Jones' case, legal backlash for their contributions to the spread of disinformation. While the specifics of each case diverge significantly, they collectively underscore the profound impact disinformation can have on society, public health, and the legal framework governing free speech. Piers Morgan, a seasoned so-called legacy media and corporate journalist and famous television personality, found himself at the center of controversy due to his initial skepticism and subsequent admission of error regarding the effectiveness of the Covid vaccine in preventing transmission. This incident occurred within the broader context of a global health crisis, where accurate information was paramount. Morgan's dissemination of disinformation (blatant lies) was part of the evolving discourse around the vaccine, influenced by big pharma, the WHO, Bill Gates, Fauci, and rapidly changing scientific understanding. His case highlights the challenge of reporting in real-time on complex, developing scientific issues, where the line between well or ill-intentioned commentary and harmful disinformation can blur. The response to Morgan's mistake has been largely ethical and reputational, leading to massive loss of integrity, blowback, and focusing on the responsibility of media figures to correct their narratives publicly when new evidence comes to light in order to attempt to whitewash their egregious and harmful lies. There has been no legal action up to now against Morgan, primarily because his errors have still not been proven to have been intentionally malicious but rather a reflection of the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge during a pandemic. In stark contrast, the case of Alex Jones serves as a stark reminder of the legal consequences that can ensue from the intentional spread of disinformation. Jones, the founder of Infowars, may have unintentionally propagated the false narrative that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax, a claim that he maintained for years despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, however which he also apologized for, much earlier on. This misinformation/disinformation was not only false but inflicted profound emotional harm on the families of the victims, leading to defamation lawsuits that culminated in Jones being ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in damages. Unlike Morgan, Jones' actions were characterized by the legacy media and journalists like Piers Morgan as a reckless disregard for the truth, with malicious intent to deceive or at least an intentional and willful blind ignorance of the facts, which directly led to tangible harm. The legal system's response to Jones' case was grounded in defamation law, emphasizing that freedom of speech does not protect statements known to be false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, especially when they cause harm. The impact in both scenarios is profound, yet it manifests differently. For Morgan, his spread of Covid vaccine disinformation might have played a role in the challenges faced by the unvaccinated community, leading to experiences of grief, harassment, distress, job and income loss, emotional and psychological harm, as well as enduring harsh attacks and verbal abuse both on social media and in public spaces like Twitter and Facebook. Many like myself were censored and repeatedly banned on platforms like X for speaking out against these types of lies, and not allowed entry into public spaces because of this. Many of the unvaccinated were ridiculed on late-night television, ostracized, and portrayed as "granny killers" and super spreaders and murderers, that didn't even deserve entry into an emergency hospital. As evidenced by Jimmy Kimmel and his phrase "Drop dead wheezy" in the context of his comments on late-night TV. Specifically, he made this remark during a monologue on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" when discussing the issue of unvaccinated people taking ivermectin, a drug typically used for animals, amid the COVID-19 situation. Kimmel suggested that hospitals should not treat unvaccinated individuals who had taken ivermectin, humorously stating, "Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo? Rest in peace, wheezy." This comment was made in September 2021. Or others like Arnold Schwarzenegger telling us to "Screw Your Freedom." For Jones, his misinformation by the likes of Piers Morgan and the legacy and corporate media also led to real-world consequences where the families of Sandy Hook victims faced harassment and emotional distress, showcasing how misinformation can translate into direct harm. Both cases illustrate the ethical responsibility of public figures to ensure the accuracy of the information they share, given their capacity to vastly influence public opinion. Ethically, both Morgan and Jones bear the responsibility to uphold the truth, though their intentions and the nature of their failures differ. Morgan's case is a cautionary tale about the need for humility and listening to the science, not rushing to judgment, or to blame and accuse millions of unvaccinated people of being "selfish, deluded ignorant morons." Morgan also criticized those who refuse vaccination while complaining about lockdowns, calling them "stupid selfish pricks," for not getting vaccinated while still wanting to enjoy freedoms like traveling and socializing. He argued that unvaccinated people should not be allowed into places like bars or restaurants to protect others. To be treated more or less like "unclean lepers," or the "underclass, less than vermin," reminiscent of Jews during World War Two by the Nazis. Jones' situation, however, is a more severe example of the reaction by the legal system, and the consequences of sharing his opinions, and conspiracy theories. The public and legal responses to these incidents reflect the broader societal challenge of balancing free speech with accountability. Morgan's situation has been addressed through public discourse and media ethics, emphasizing the role of self-correction in the information ecosystem. In contrast, Jones' legal battle underscores the limits of free speech when it crosses into defamation, establishing a precedent for holding individuals accountable when their disinformation causes direct harm. In conclusion, the cases of Piers Morgan and Alex Jones offer a comprehensive view of the spectrum of issues related to the spread of disinformation and its consequences. They illustrate that the intent, context, and consequences of spreading misinformation can vary widely, depending on whether one is a legacy journalist like Morgan or an independent journalist like Jones. Individuals like Morgan, who have the power to influence public opinion, bear a profound responsibility to ensure the veracity of their messages, yet, for some reason, they often seem to receive a free pass. Morgan's case highlights the pitfalls of reporting on rapidly evolving situations, rushing to judgment, ignoring scientific evidence, being overly emotional, bombastic, self-righteous, and, some might argue, even sadistic. On the other hand, Jones' legal outcomes serve as a reminder that with great influence in alternative media comes even greater and much harsher accountability, especially when the dissemination of conspiracy theories runs counter to the mainstream media narrative. Together, these cases underscore the existence of double standards in accountability and argue for a more equitable legal system and greater integrity in information dissemination in our interconnected world.