You ARE defending him. By refusing to acknowledge that he is CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY and now even LEGALLY a liar and therefore in a vastly different situation you are defending you.
I understand perfectly well. You don’t accept that he IS a liar, that he DID defame these people, and that it is perfectly reasonable for him to face the well established non-1st amendment damaging consequences for those actions.
Gonna butt into this argument for a moment:
To be clear, I don't think the conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook being fake are even the least bit true. I just am not sure that Alex Jones was guilty of maliciously promoting them. I've heard different stories about events concerning Alex Jones and the related conspiracy theories, and as far as I know he really only entertained the notion briefly when the facts were not well established. Its possible that the narrative that he was a malicious promoter and slanderer is true and not that more innocent narrative. I have not really researched the matter.
But I do not consider it a moral defect to condemn when I am not sure. Even if there is social pressure put upon me to condemn. Even if the subject is of a very delicate nature.