Attorneys for right-wing radio host Alex Jones and several Sandy Hook families met Thursday before the Connecticut Supreme Court to present oral arguments in a defamation suit by survivors and relatives of the 2012 mass school shooting.

Each side gave oral and rebuttal arguments for about 45 minutes, as the case before the state's high court centered on two primary issues: whether Jones had the First Amendment right to go on an on-air tirade against Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder attorney Chris Matte, and whether Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis overstepped her authority when she sanctioned him for those remarks.

On his InfoWars radio show which broadcasts from Austin, Texas and airs on the Genesis Communications Network across the United States and online, Jones made references to Mattei planting pornography in a deposition. He pounded his fist as he criticized the attorney, and flashed a picture of Mattei.

Norm Pattis, Jones' New Haven-based attorney, argued that despite his client's 20-minute commentary, the First Amendment protected Jones.

"There was no threat here," Pattis told the seven justices. "They [attorneys at the Koskoff firm] picked this fight, and this is an attempt to silence Mr. Jones. This is an attempt to silence speech."

Pattis called Jones' comments "hyperbole" and said having a "hate speech exception to the First Amendment is dangerous."

But Josh Koskoff, a principal at the Koskoff firm, which represents the plaintiff families, disagreed. He argued Jones' speech, which reaches an audience of millions, met the criteria for exclusion from First Amendment protections.

It "has no protection whatsoever on First Amendment grounds," Koskoff told the justices. "It was clearly defamation. There were elements of incitement, and it was clearly a true threat."

In their May 2018 defamation lawsuit against Jones, the Sandy Hook families alleged the Texas-based radio host helped perpetuate a conspiracy theory.

Shooter Alex Lanza killed 20 children and six educators with a Bushmaster rifle at the elementary school in December 2012. But Jones said the shooting was a hoax, and the victims were "crisis actors" working at the government's direction.

Jones has since walked back those comments, but the lawsuit calls him one of "the most prolific" fabricators advancing the conspiracy theories.

There are several issues at play before Connecticut's high court.

Among them: a motion to dismiss, from Pattis, under Connecticut General Statutes 52-196a, an anti-SLAPP statute that provides defendants with an expedited means to seek dismissal of lawsuits that impinge on free speech.

The trial court, under the direction of Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis, had allowed limited discovery relevant to Jones' special motion to dismiss the case, Lafferty v. Jones, styled after Erica Lafferty, whose mother Dawn Hochspring was the school principal killed in the attack.

Now, in addition to the dismissal motion, the high court will also consider whether Bellis was legally within her rights to sanction Jones for allegedly threatening Mattei on his radio show.

At trial, Bellis had found Jones' conduct was unacceptable and sanctionable. She found the defendants were precluded from pursuing the special motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs were entitled to an award of attorney fees in connection with Jones' rant against Mattei.

The plaintiffs seek monetary and punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs.

With regard to the sanctions, Pattis criticized Bellis' ruling, which also said the defense team was noncompliant with discovery requests from the Koskoff firm.

"It never occurred to me, in my wildest dreams, that Judge Bellis would do what she did." Pattis said forcefully, "Whatever we did was never enough, it was a source of some frustration."

After various discovery requests, the Koskoff team claimed the defendants were stonewalling them in the discovery process and that is when they moved for a sanction precluding the defendants from pursuing the special motion to dismiss.

But Pattis called Bellis "a third prosecutor," instead of "a trier of fact."

"In my view we were never going to satisfy the plaintiffs on discovery," he said.

Koskoff, on the other hand, said, Bellis was "diligent in keeping on top of everything."

"Discovery was marked by delays," he said. "How many times do you have to warn someone?"

There was a moment of confusion and anticipation when, after Pattis and Koskoff gave their oral arguments, the judges called a recess. Many in the courtroom surmised a decision would be handed down immediately. But soon after, it was announced the justices would not be coming back to the courtroom Thursday, and there would be no decision that day.

Related stories: