I haven’t followed this closely, but my understanding is Jones never used a single name of a parent in his misguided conspiracy theories. If that is the case, then this does set a new precedent. It means you can be sued when referring to an unincorporated group of people. If that’s the case, then we’ll all be rich for the slander against freedom loving Americans. So bring it. Meanwhile, I am sure Jones will appeal and it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.
“...this does set a new precedent. It means you can be sued when referring to an unincorporated group of people.”
Except it doesn’t set any new precedent. This is just one category of what is known as “defamation by implication”, and people have been getting sued over it for a long, long time. The courts have been given divided rulings on whether defamation by implication is actionable, with some saying yes, some saying no, and some saying “it depends”. As far as I know, the Supreme Court hasn’t issued a definitive answer yet, so whether you can sue for it depends on state law and the precedents that have been set by the district courts where you live.
The Jones case wasn’t a ruling on the merits of the case or this particular question, so it won’t even be added to the list of precedents that already exist on the question in that particular district.