But free speech doesn’t mean speech without consequences. He’s being sued by the victims of what he said. It’s not the government doing this, it’s the people he hurt, and that’s the definition of “justice”.
The fact that he made money from it simply helps the judge - who is not part of the government executive - understand the motivation for what he did. The reason someone did something might be a mitigating factor in some cases, but this time it’s probably aggravating.
In this phase about damages, the economics can be considered as a factor. It can also imply his motivations. The testimony given in this hearing showed direct connections between defaming Sandy Hook victims and money made by Alex Jones. He knew it was a money making story from the first day.
A true believer might spend their time and money on useful evidence instead of crappy photoshops and flashy nonsense. Alex Jones wasn't doing that. He was pushing the flashy nonsense, calling it evidence, and watching the money roll in.
He never really tried to prove his theories because that isn't a required part of the grift.
Essentially, he did an illegal thing (defamation) and made money by doing that illegal thing. Economic fines and damages are pretty common to dissuade people from doing illegal things to make money.