The test for injury and culpability here is along the same as those might be applied in a defamation or libel case.
In tort law, the best defence is being correct.
Jones was not correct. But then he is not correct on a great many things. Which works in his favor.
If a figure is known to be polarizing, a reasonable person would not believe or trust what they say. If someone is known for saying outlandish things, they ought to be seen as unreliable - or perhaps as an entertainment figure.
But this trial has subtexts far beyond righting wrongs or compensating for real loss and damage - there is political agenda about punishing and silencing a fringe voice.
And, as Juries are prone to, unpredictable and outsized awards are made based on sympathies over facts. Which is why many states cap awards or require judicial tempering.
Don't get me wrong. I think Jones and anyone who takes him seriously is a nut job, but I have to acknowledge secondary forces beyond strict application of law.