Fox News has reached a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for a reported $787 million. That was roughly half of the $1.6 billion originally sought in the defamation case, but represents a massive payout to the company which claimed to have been defamed by the network.
As a legal analyst on Fox News, I have largely refrained from writing about the case. Many of us who teach in the areas of tort and constitutional law were uneasy over the impact of a verdict in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan in the 1960s. It has little to do with Dominion or Fox. It has a great deal to do with the rights of free speech and the free press.
Dominion brought a $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News and parent company Fox Corporation in March 2021 based on interviews and commentary on claims by President Donald Trump and his associates that Dominion’s voting machines were used to rig the 2020 election.
Fox was recently hit by damaging rulings by Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis in clearing the path for the lawsuit.
While all of the details are not known, the settlement will avoid any trial and any precedent over key legal questions including (1) the line between opinion and fact in the media and (2) the application of the “actual malice” standard to these statements.
Some on this blog previously noted that my circumspection in commenting on the case was likely an effort to avoid any appearance of bias or a possible conflict of interest. I not only work for Fox as a legal analyst, but I came up in the discovery, albeit tangentially, in the litigation. One of the emails produced in discovery from Rupert Murdoch showed him favorably raising my analysis while warning hosts not to echo “sore loser” claims. Murdoch was encouraging balanced coverage. The email concerned my analysis that there was no real evidence of voter fraud that would change the outcome and that we would have to wait to see if such evidence was submitted in court filings. On Fox, I criticized the Trump legal team for failing to do so at their long-awaited press conference and instead offerring unsupported conspiracy theories.
The settlement avoids what would have been a lengthy trial and likely years of appeals. In the Nick Sandmann controversy, settlements were reached where media made express false statements of fact. In that case, a videotape clearly refuted what was being reported as an attack by the then high school student against an elderly Native American activist.
This case was a bit different in the inclusion of more vicarious liability for the statements made by high-ranking Trump associates in interviews. (Fox itself recently reached a settlement with an individual who claimed specific false allegations against him in the voting controversy).
The case was likely to address the obligation of media not only to report but to retort or rebut viewpoints. That created concerns even among Fox critics over its impact on journalism. The settlement means that this will not be a case for the law books, but it will obviously be debated for years to come.
These views expressed here are my own and not those of any of my associated media organizations.
Although some of the on-air personalities for Fox News like Trump, the people who run Fox News do not. More importantly, they know that, in New York, it is not good for business to give the impression that you agree with Trump on anything. Hatred for Trump permeates New York politics, law, finance, journalism, academia, sports, and the arts. Settling with Dominion was always going happen.
The trial was in DE, not NY.
Like ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, Fox News headquarters is in New York City. After the trial, the Fox News people involved traveled back to New York.
When the 1st Amendment was written and ratified, there was deterrence against defamation. But it was decided too gruesome and unpredictable in the wake of the Burr-Hamilton duel. Thus, defamation torts law was created as reasonable alternative deterrent, not involving government as prosecutor, but rather as a neutral magistrate and verdict-enforcer.
I’m disappointed this case did not go to trial and jury verdict, and be appealed, since this was a seminal case with ample evidence to bring before the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan v. NYT. The 14th Amendment assures equal treatment under the law, and the majority who handed down Sullivan in 1964 curiously ignored this principle in creating a class of “public persons” whose rights to defamation deterrence were substantially weakened.
In terms of the public’s right to deter public frauds (of a political nature, e.g. to pull the wool over the voters’ eyes),
we are just skimming the surface with defamation law. Why? Let’s say Sullivan were repealed, restoring to public personalities a uniform and meaningful standard of defamation deterrence. Deceitful infowarriors — including campaign operatives, media surrogates, dark money actors….extending as far as foreign actors working to see their choice of US President elected….would merely adapt their craft so that no obvious defamation was involved in their false narrative. There would remain that gaping loophole allowing deceitful infowarfare as a normal tool of campaign competition.
This points out the need for a more general Public Frauds Deterrence law, modeled on civil torts, but where the public could act as the plaintiff party (completely outside the reach of government). This means that government officials, both while serving in office, and while running campaigns, would be subject to the same public frauds deterrence as all other actors. This would plug the hole we witnessed where FBI and intel-sector actors pushed out a whopper explaining away Hunter Biden’s laptop emails as “likely Russian hacking” three weeks before a national election in order to sway voters toward Biden and away from Trump.
We have a long ways to go to purge the public infospace of deceitful disinformation campaigns. But what happened in the Nicholas Sandmann case, and yesterday with Fox News are baby steps toward that goal.
If the 1st Amendment were meant to give legal protection to those who intend on defrauding the public, then the United States faces a bleak future….poor electoral and policy decisions, and creeping autocracy and corruption.
The law has some serious catching up to do.
There is more to meet the eye than Bug’s recent posting reveals. It involves privacy and poorly understood financial considerations, some of which I will explain below Bug’s deleted text.
.”Knowing Fox paid a multiple million dollar settlement to not have to reveal the staggering amount of evidence of their systematic lying about the 2020 election on the air..”
Your thinking doesn’t pierce the surface and lacks specificity. If you know of the lies that would make Fox responsible for such a payout, state them. You don’t. If they intended to pay such high dollar amounts, they would have retracted whatever significant lies they made when the evidence was clear.
I believe a recent purchase of the company valued it at less than half of the payout. We should assume this tells us some reasons go deeper than any ‘lies’ Dominion can prove.
I believe, disclosing inside information would compromise some reputations at Fox and the entire news division.
Many conservatives left Fox long ago. Many commentators and others on Fox probably have two reputations, one for public knowledge and the other deeply hidden. There is also political disagreement among the children, which might have led to embarrassing discoverable information on the family.
We need to recognize the payout is from Fox, not the family money. We do not know the distribution schedules of Murdoch’s estate or the details behind the payment of ~800 M.
The money comes from Fox, not the Murdochs. When Rupert’s children inherit, tax ramifications probably play a big part. The estate tax is 40%. That means the meaningful payout is less than $480 M, and we do not know the payout terms. That can have a tremendous effect on the price paid.
The right frequently questions Fox’s attitudes. The most recent question remaining open is why Tucker didn’t continue to show the tapes from Jan 6. Disclosure might have revealed an answer.
Finally, I believe the dollar amount paid by Fox was more than the company’s valuation when the last purchase occurred. That adds to the confusion as to why the settlement was so high.
Instead of “why Tucker didn’t continue to show the tapes from Jan 6” I would ask: Why does Speaker McCarthy (R-CA) not make good on his promise to release J6 tapes to the public?
You are correct and if you have any ideas, I would like to hear them. I limited it to Tucker because I was dealing with Fox’s lawsuit. I am very troubled that the rest of the tapes weren’t released. That would provide thousands of eyes to pick up things not yet noted and could help clarify the events.
I hope anyone with ideas on this subject comments.
Regardless of the fact that the publication of further J6 video footage would hardly change the prevailing opinion: The speaker will have his reasons why he does not take action.
Did GOP promising to advance legislation to clamp down on illegal immigration and drug trafficking?
How many major legislative victory did President Trump have when GOP has control of both chambers? I forgot: “He had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process.”
“The speaker will have his reasons why he does not take action.”
I’d like to hear those reasons because I can’t think of any good ones not to release the tapes of J6.
The GOP wasn’t as supportive of Trump as they should have been, but Trump’s policies put us in a better place. Today we can see how badly a President can screw things up. I am hoping we don’t have a war before the end of this administration.
Had Trump been appropriately supported by the GOP his administration would have been even more successful. He would be midway in his second term and none of the horrors we see today would be facing us.
1. Trump’s “Economic Security is National Security” was torpedoed by both Speaker of the House & SEN Majority Leader by intention.
2. Those who are supportive of “American Way of Life” will back “Trump’s policies put us in a better place”. However majority voted for “Biden-Sanders Manifesto” [1] both in ’20 & ’22, which is the contrary.
3. “Horrors we see today” is the result that the electorate voted for.
[1] https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UNITY-TASK-FORCE-RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf
Charlotte, essentially you are correct. Our problem is that the political insiders are being provided with unjust gains and want to keep it that way. People like Trump are outsiders and threaten the insider’s pocketbook and their reputations. The hypocrisy of many insiders has no bounds. This hypocrisy and insider dealings percolate through to the lowest offices of the land and include all sorts of boards, including school boards. I do not think Biden won the election if we were to have constrained the fraud during the election.
As a rule those who have built wealth with the least connection to government are orders of magnitude more trustworthy than those who do so intertwined in government.
Such as the billionaire Crow?
I knew little about him until you brought his name up. What do you know?
Here are some quotes from some memorable people.
“he’s filled his property with these mementos because he hates communism and fascism. Well, I mean, that seems like a reason why you might own this stuff is to remember the things that you hate.”
“historical nod to the facts of man’s inhumanity to man.” _Dallas News reporter
“If these statues can be utilized as a tool to remind newer generations of the failure of the bad guys and the triumph of the good guys, then it’s a lesson worth having.” __Crow
“Crow’s politics are not mine. But in the matter of his pastimes, he is blameless.” _Graeme Wood
You pretend, but what do you know? Apparently very little.
He has a copy of Mein Kampf signed by Hitler. He has at least two paintings by Adolf Hitler. He has Nazi memorabilia of all kinds, but he is not a fascist because someone says so?
Yeah, sure.
I do not know much about him, but I read quotes from those that seem to. There are many more people saying similar things. You know nothing, yet you draw conclusions. That doesn’t say much about you.
One of the quotes was from an Orthodox Jew who loves America and Israel. I think he had family murdered in the Holocaust. Another is a writer from the left. There are plenty more.
Thomas visited a man at his home. There is something wrong with the leftist mind.
He does not deny the Hitler stuff. He says he is “saving” it for a museum.
So ?
What is your argument ?
He collects things from reprehensible people going deep into the past. My understanding is he despises those people. Did you ever think twice before accusing and convicting the man? No. That demonstrates you are the despot-loving individual who believes a man has to prove himself innocent, not that the state must prove him guilty. Didn’t you ever learn about how our criminal courts function?
Such as ANY billionaire.
S, Meyer,
“If you know of the lies that would make Fox responsible for such a payout, state them. You don’t.”
Everybody knows. It’s been public knowledge for a while, except perhaps Fox News viewers who have been in a news blackout about the case by their favorite network.
Fox news knew Dominion had more evidence to present in court on top of what was released publicly. That’s why they settled and grudgingly agreed to pay close to $800 million. Their problems are not over. The Smartmatic company still has it’s own defamation case pending against Fox News.
“Everybody knows.”
Yet you can’t mention them in the context of Fox being guilty. All you provide is empty rhetoric, most often wrong, demonstrating a severe lack of intellectual rigor.
“Fox news knew Dominion had more evidence to present in court on top of what was released publicly. “
What news was that? You are making things up again proving yourself to be foolish.
“That’s why they settled and grudgingly agreed to pay close to $800 million. “
No. They would have eventually won. The decisions of the lower court judge wouldn’t have stood unless the SC was willing to revoke the 7th Amendment.
I stated some of my rationals for Fox settling. I note your statement “That’s why they settled”, but you didn’t consider any of my reasons, the facts, or the law.
Thank God for the many states where voters mark their ballots by hand, with a pen, instead of being required to use computer-controlled ballot marking devices. Only people unable to vote by hand are allowed to use computer-controlled ballot marking devices.
My county allows anyone who wishes to use a ballot marking device, but it then produces a paper printout, and that printout is what’s read by the ballot counting device.
Some states are like mine and use vote-counting scanners that read the bar codes printed by ballot marking devices (BMDs), not the words or the filled-in circles. Voters using those systems have no idea what the bar codes say. And, even in cases where the vote-counting scanners read the words or the filled-in circles printed by BMDs, studies have shown that a significant number of voters, already intimidated by using computers to mark their ballots, do not check their ballots before they are scanned.
My county gives everyone the option of filling in circles on a printed ballot if they prefer. Everyone has a choice about whether to use a paper ballot or a ballot marking device. Moreover, because there is a paper trail for every voter, they accuracy of the scanner counts can be audited.
There is no paper trail, only a printout of the digital trail.
In my county, that printout shows the voters choices (if something is inaccurate, the voter can void it before its counted), and — again — any voter who chooses can instead fill a ballot in by pen.
One question is whether ballot marking devices leave a paper trail, not a printout of a digital trail, that can be used to recount or audit the votes (except for the very small percentage of votes cast by people physically unable to hand-mark their ballots).
They do not.
And I’m telling you that in MY county, the paper printout from the ballot marking device is a ballot that anyone can read. The person who used the BMD can easily confirm that the device accurately recorded the votes, and it can also be read by anyone carrying out an audit for the count from the ballot scanning device, which is separate.
I don’t think you understand how difficult it would be to mickey election equipment without being detected, caught, and prosecuted. These election systems and processes are audited (including software inspections) by parties neutral in the outcome of the election. Why don’t you mount your own research into the copious controls that you assume can be easily thwarted, instead of taking up bs conspiracy theories? I think we both know what the result would be: each con game you imagine happening was plugged systematically with countermeasures long ago.
Consumers at gas pumps across America are constantly subject to credit and ID fraud, not to mention gasoline pump fraud (did you really just get a gallon of gas, or was it more like .990 gallon?). This, despite the pumps having been inspected earlier that year.
This post is a perfect illustration of the problem with Prof. Turley’s Fox News/NY Post gigs. His views on anything relating to current politics and political media carry little weight because there is always suspicion he is opining to please (or at least not offend) the Fox/NY Post universe. And it’s too bad – Prof. Turley has a first-class legal resume and mind, but it’s tied up in financial conflicts.
This reply is to my mind a wonderful bit of situational irony. In this post about the ominous challenge to the line between the right – and duty – of the press to report facts – even where those reported facts are the opinions of third parties who may or may not be accurate or even plausible – this reply appears to sail right into the same conflict. Unless I badly misunderstand the marketplace of ideas, its value includes the publication of the opinion of newsmakers. It’s newsworthy to know that Rudy and Sydney said what they said, etc. As it was newsworthy, for example, to know what 51 former IC officials thought about the Hunter laptop being Russian agitprop.
Ironically, this reply challenges Prof. Turley’s value as a Fox reporter vis-a-vis the Dominion lit in a similar way.. As with every market for every good or service, its players reckon value. The “equilibrium price” is determined accordingly. For my money, for my adjudications of journalistic value, whether it’s Prof. Turley or any other witness/reporter/expert, I prefer to hear from all corners and weigh the credibility accordingly. Anything less is, well, dangerous. Here we normally insert the usual admonitions from Orwell et all. I won’t do that. I simply say that for my money, Prof. Turley has been day-in day-out credible and smart and and valuable contribution to the discussion of this litigation. NTL, I trust the marketplace – and my own critical thinking skills – to expose Prof. Turley when and where it is appropriate.
I have a different take here. True, Trump is a narcissist and due to his mental illness, can never publicly admit he lost a free and fair election. His ego forbids such a thing. He may bloviate about unfairness and whine about the vote being rigged because his ego can’t admit the truth, but does his making such outrageous claims shield a media outlet that publishes these accusations? At least two companies that make vote counting equipment were slandered–Dominion and Smart Matic. Fox reported the outrageous claim that the machines made by these companies stole votes from Trump and either dumped the votes or changed them to votes for Biden–all without any scintilla of evidence or even the smallest effort to investigate whether what was alleged could even be true. On top of all of that, all polls predicted Trump would lose–so why would Fox think that he even could have won but for manipulation by Dominion and SmartMatic? So, the question is: does freedom of speech and freedom of the press allow a media outlet to publish unproven claims that voting equipment used all over the US is rigging elections by manipulating the vote? I don’t think so. But, on top of that, you have solid proof that Fox KNEW these allegations were not true. They published the claims anyway because they wanted to keep their market share. So, Fox made a financial decision to go along with Trump’s lies, knowing they were lies, because it benefitted financially. Fox would have gotten slaughtered–and that would have been a good thing, because there has to be some limit here. Trump’s accusations don’t qualify as “opinions”–he and his lawyers affirmatively accused these vote machine companies of perpetrating fraud–all without any proof. Can a media company essentially put a vote machine manufacturer out of business just because a losing candidate makes up lies about the machines being manipulated? Fox didn’t even want us to hear the Plaintiffs’ opening statement, much less the testimony of its “hosts”. Laurence O’Donnell did an excellent piece last night about how stupid it was for Rupert Murdoch to even let the case go as far as it did–evidence that was disclosed in pretrial motions revealed that even Fox hosts know Trump is a liar and they don’t even like him, but they go along with putting out his lies anyway just to keep ratings.
FOX proved one thing, money is speech. They will be more than happy to shell out even more money in order to lie to their viewers listeners, and readers, to further their political ideological agenda. And it already has been proven, FOX fans don’t care about the lies and alternative reality that exists in the world of FOXNEWS.
Fish Wings: thank you. All of this fits into the reason why Fox was started in the first place–Nixon. There were Republicans who believed that if there was an alternative source of “facts” that Nixon’s presidency could possibly have been salvaged if they could have created doubt about how serious Watergate was and how bad it was for a US President to be involved. They were upset that mainstream media wouldn’t accuse Woodward and Bernstein and the WAPO of a political agenda, or that mainstream media didn’t question the honesty or integrity of those who provided information to Woodward and Bernstein, or to push back against Nixon and the crimes he was accused of. Why should mainstream media have pushed back or tried to defend Nixon–he WAS guilty as sin, and they had the goods on him. He only resigned because Barry Goldwater told him they had the votes to remove him from office, so it was better to leave on his own via resigning than get thrown out. The mistake was in not prosecuting Nixon, because after he slunk away in disgrace and licked his wounds for awhile, he started feeling sorry for himself and then began denying that he was involved in Watergate. There are Republicans who still think Nixon was a victim.
Trump is a narcissist, true, but never admitting he lost is also part of his shtick. It is an act, a game strategy (similar to Stacy Abrams). And it may get him the nomination next year, although he will lose the General Election, barring something extraordinary like a Manchin 3rd party run and the election going to the House.
If you think defamatory lies are newsworthy, you point out that they’re lies.
“it was newsworthy, for example, to know what 51 former IC officials thought about the Hunter laptop being Russian agitprop. ”
They were careful not to lie, and who did they defame?
Lies are knowingly false statements of fact, not opinions. That’s why Tucker Carlson got away with making false statements about Karen McDougal: the judge ruled that no one would assume that Carlson was making factual claims rather than voicing opinion.
No Tom, look at Prof. Turley’s fortune [1], he isn’t “tied up in financial conflicts.” IMO it’s much more interesting what current legal issues he doesn’t comment on!
[1] https://biographicsworld.com/jonathan-turley-bio-family-profession-wife-net-worth-measurements/
“there is always suspicion”
Nice ad hominem. Next time, try an argument.
1. After Presidential election ’16 “was stolen from her”, there where claims that voting machines created irregularties. [1]
2. There are still multiple defamation lawsuits pending [2], and Konnech vs True the Vote.
3. Critics of ’20 election results claim that # 45 has lost because of ballot harvesting schemes in Arizona (10,457), Georgia (11,779), Wisconsin (20,682), Pennsylvania (80,555), and Michigan (154,188). The point of contention: Was money involved to pick up and deliver mail-in ballots into drop boxes (which is illegal) or did family, household member or caregiver deliver a ballot (which is permitted). IMO movie “2,000 mules” would be much more effective if the accusation, (unnamed) DNC associated nonprofit organizations paid “mules” had been omitted: It cannot be proven in court,
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-challenge-election-results_n_5834e3a6e4b000af95ed3a34
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/04/19/fox-news-defamation-settlement-here-are-where-dominion-and-smartmatics-other-lawsuits-stand-now/?sh=60c807d54a24
Yashar Ali:
1. $787.5 million settlement from Fox
2. Over 1,000 people charged with federal crimes for Jan 6.
3. A complex special counsel investigation.
4. Careers and reputations destroyed.
5. A major state investigation.
All because one man, Donald Trump, couldn’t admit he lost.
So, what is Al Gore Jr. responsible for?
If you don’t know, look it up.
In short: On 11/7/00 VP Gore phoned “W” to concede, then retracted his concession. Following a mandatory machine recount, the Gore campaign requested a manual recount in four counties. Before FL Secretary Katherine Harris (R), appointed by then Gov Jeb Bush (R) certified the election on 11/26, several court rulings took place. On 12/10 SCOTUS (531 U.S. 98( had the final say, three days late Presidential candidate VP Gore conceded.
How “W”, Jeb & Karl interpret gratitude in politics can be read here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/06/katherine-harris-gets-kicked-to-the-curb.html
It’s my understanding that the Supreme Court decision was December 12 and that Gore privately conceded to Bush later that night and publicly conceded on December 13. Gore as VP also presided over the electoral college certification in January. Finally, he also attended the inauguration of Bush later in January.
“All because one man, Donald Trump, couldn’t admit he lost.”
Or, because one party fixed an election because they didn’t like one man.
The election wasn’t “fixed.”
No, it was flat out stolen.
All because children hated one man. Look at everything you have destroyed to “get Trump” – and you’ve still failed.
Pathetic.
It wasn’t stolen. Trump lost.
Anonymous – It is possible that “Trump lost”, but he did not lose fairly. Regarding the suppression of the Hunter laptop story by the Democratic Party and its co-conspirators, I refer readers to the following story in the Daily Mail, December 1qq2, 2022 –
Headline:
“Americans who track the Hunter Biden laptop saga by wide margins say the FBI misled the public with claims about Russian disinformation, and that the 2020 election may have played out differently had the story not been suppressed.”
Excerpt:
“The survey by TIPP Insights follows revelations by new Twitter CEO Elon Musk that the firm’s executives in 2020 censored shocking details about Hunter Biden, son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden, at the climax of that year’s election.
The survey of 501 adults who follow the issue found that nearly two thirds believe the details about Hunter Biden’s chaotic lifestyle of drugs, prostitutes and overseas business dealings are authentic.
That includes 81 percent of Republican voters and 48 percent of Democrats.
. . .
Another half of respondents said they would have voted differently had they known the Hunter Biden’s laptop revelations were authentic. Interestingly, Republican and Democratic voters were more or less aligned on this question.
Finally, a wide margin of respondents — 71 percent — said a truthful interpretation of the Hunter Biden laptop issue could have swung the November 3 election, which saw Biden defeat incumbent Donald Trump by 51.3-46.9 percent of the popular vote.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11529381/Hunter-Bidens-laptop-Voters-lacked-critical-information-2020-election-survey-shows.html
We still don’t know what parts of the HB laptop story are “authentic.” Some emails have been verified. Most have not. The laptop itself has not.
And you could have easily have found that Trump would have lost in 2016 had the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal stories not been suppressed.
Some emails have been verified. Most have not. The laptop itself has not.
Nothing concerning the laptop information has been identified as phony.
The FBI leaks all the derogatory findings. The absence of such leaks is evidence of the validity of all the information. The FBI is Like Jack Smith in doing with his investigation. Continuing to leak details.
“We still don’t know what parts of the HB laptop story are “authentic.””
ATS, It doesn’t make a difference if 90% of the laptop wasn’t authentic. All that counts is the parts used are authentic and you have yet to mention any parts that lack authenticity.
The laptop is reasonably authenticated so what you are doing is being devious telling everyone that we can never have proof of anything, therefore Joe Biden is innocent of all the things he is guilty for.
You make little sense and don’t understand what evidence is so continue on in the same fashion and give us a few more laughs.
Many fathers and mothers have electoral successes. Defeats too. IMO one is underestimated: MAGA & GOP are two different entities; as a significant part of the electorate who support MAGA doesn’t vote for GOP and vice versa a victory in states like AZ, GA, and PA is hard to get. Consequently, how should any GOP candidate win Presidency in ’24?
“It wasn’t stolen.”
$400 million from Zuckerberg to influence the election. 51 intelligence “experts” influencing the election. The MSM and various social media companies influencing the election. The FBI and various alphabet agencies influencing the election. (And that’s just for starters.)
When you usurp something (e.g., a free and fair election) that you have no right to — that’s called “theft.”
If that’s how you’re defining “theft,” then the 2016 election was also stolen.
Or you can act like an adult, admit that you’re distorting the definition of “stolen,” and accept that neither was stolen.
Sure it was, you just ignore all the angles that lead up to it being fixed. I get it, your hatred for President Trump is so great you are unwilling to see/look at the issues. But don’t expect the rest of us to except something because you are happy with the fixed results.
No, it wasn’t; you just ignore all the angles that lead up to it NOT being fixed.
Again I repeat, “We know the 2020 election was stolen because not one valid forensic audit was allowed to be made in any of the 5 toss up states.” The farce in Arizona should have been aborted as soon as the ballot boxes were found to be comprised by their security tapes broken or missing. The election ballots no longer had a chain custody and the election should have rerun because of this reason alone. The Maricopa County election officials were responsible for maintaining the ballots integrity and failed.”
“All because one man, Donald Trump, couldn’t admit he lost.”
Bug, ATS, or Svelaz (when he forgets to sign his name) learn what freedom of speech is. Donald Trump had the right to say the election was rigged and had the right to his opinions. I guess you are ignorant and don’t recognize the Amendments and the Constitution protect freedom of speech.
All three speak on this subject with the same voice so it matter little who the actual reply came from.
If this gets deleted it’s most likely Bug followed by ATS.
OT: Fulton County DA Fani Willis is seeking to remove a lawyer from representing 10 Georgia Republicans who served as ‘fake electors’ for Trump in 2020, claiming the attorney didn’t tell her clients they’d been offered immunity deals in the case.
Debrow said she recorded every interview involving the DA’s office and her clients, “and the Court will be able to hear for itself how the DA’s Office has completely misrepresented the facts.” She adds that she has “ethically and professionally represented my clients at all times.” If so, that’s a clear unforced error on Willis’s part.
News = a report of a recent event; intelligence; information
Fox is not news. They lied. Concerning the lies about Dominion, they knowingly told us things that did not happen. IMHO they deserve no 1st amendment protections concerning the press. A first amendment right to say crap, sure, but no protections if their speech caused harm.
And it ain’t over yet. Based on how this went, it is my sincere hope that fox and co loose every lawsuit and cease to exist. They are a bane on society. good riddance.
Though the ‘silo of ignorance comment has been removed, it is clear from Tono-Bungay’s post which media sources are pouring their audiences into one, and what the net effect is.
The comment is still there.
Dominion’s owners just got 10x what the company was worth when they bought a majority interest in 2018.
Only this one defamation case is over.
Dominion still has pending defamation lawsuits against Newsmax, OANN, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell and Patrick Byrne.
Fox News is still being sued by Smartmatic for $2.7 billion. Smartmatic is also suing NewsMax and OANN.
Fox is also still facing related suits from one of its producers and from shareholders.
Fox news has a long way to go with these suits and the financial penalties will keep piling on. Thus is the price for deliberately lying to their viewers. It’s not over for Fox News.
Smartmatic is also suing Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeanine Pirro, along with Fox Corporation, Sidney Powell and Rudolph Giuliani.
Fox certainly merited this penalty, and it had the misfortune (if you want to call it that) of knowing that it was offering lies to the public. The rest of the news media merit similar penalties, but I think they usually are so self-righteously ideology-bound that they don’t realize how much they distort things. Case in point: I’m visiting from out of the country, and my very nice New England hosts watch PBS and listen to NPR and they have all the usual liberal views. They haven’t seen anything, for instance, of the wilding incident the other day in Chicago, and the lady of the couple really doesn’t want to hear about it. They are as cosseted in their views as Fox viewers in theirs. I hope that the punishment of Fox will improve that network and maybe even the others as well. Call me “Dreamer”.
I wish this had gone to a jury trial and then proceeded all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States as a landmark media/press free speech case. As Alan Dershowitz said in one of his recent videos about this defamation case, I think this will likely have some seen or unseen chilling effect on free speech in the media.
I really didn’t like the coverage that Fox News (or any the left leaning networks) presented regarding the election, but I’m terribly disappointed that Fox News didn’t fight this further. I’m guessing that this was a pure financial decision so the network could move on with some closure.
If this had been a left leaning networks that was being sued like this instead of the pariah of the political left, Fox News, I think all of the free speech advocate groups across the USA would have been crawling out from under their partisan rocks to support a political left leaning network in any way they could and constantly smearing the company suing in the court of public opinion. The fact that none of the free speech advocacy groups came out in support of Fox News on this one is signature significant that partisan advocacy now fully trumps constitutional rights advocacy in these groups. This is very sad.
I’m a huge fan of a reasonably balanced approach in presenting the facts in the news and against all the 21st century trend towards advocacy journalism in the media, but I think free speech in the media just took a big hit.
Take it away Alan Dershowitz…
and
Witherspoon, the reason why none of the free speech groups come to Fox News defense is because Fox News had a very weak defense of their actions. The evidence that became public and the way the case was heading made it very clear that they were going to be seriously damaged by the evidence against them.
Fox News was never balanced. It’s entire business model relied on lying to it’s viewers incessantly and keeping them in this silo of ignorance while they knew full well they were not telling the truth. That’s how they made their money. By keeping their gullible viewers from going somewhere else for their news by giving them what they wanted. Confirmation of their nutty conspiracy theories and enabling Trumps BS. It cost Fox News dearly. They will continue to lie to their viewers unless they get hit again by a massive settlement payout to Smartmatic or end up on trial with this lawsuit. This was not about free speech. This was about their failure at journalistic integrity.
Svelaz,
Watch both of the videos I posted and learn.
Witherspoon, Dershowitz is an idiot. He’s a lawyer and demanding Dominion, a private company, to publicly disclose their algorithms for scrutiny would be a fair demand IF there was evidence of tampering and fraud. Problems is there isn’t. Dominion is the one who is suing and they don’t have to disclose such information. Fox News has been lying about Dominion’s machines and about claims that it has rigged the election. Court after court has shown no evidence showing that is true. Even in the depositions released by Dominion showed Trump’s lawyers while claiming Dominion altering votes stated they had no evidence.
Dominion clearly showed Fox News was lying intentionally in order to keep their viewers from fleeing to other networks.
Dershowitz not understanding the settlement speaks volumes about his ignorance and incompetence in analyzing this case. Defamation is illegal. Dominion PROVED thru discovery that Fox News was deliberately lying about it’s machines and the claims about Dominion altering votes and rigging the election. The texts and emails PROVED Fox News knew those claims were NOT true. Dominion had a very strong case and Fox News knew it. That is why they were desperately trying to have the case dismissed and why they tried to settle multiple times. Fox News knew it was going to lose. Lying about Dominion’s machines and the claims against it enabled by Fox News were damaging to their business and reputation. If Dershowitz couldn’t figure that out he clearly has no business analyzing the case. Dershowitz is a moron and way past his prime as a lawyer. He is just one level below Rudy Giuliani when it comes to legal credibility. That’s not good.
Svelaz wrote, “Dershowitz is an idiot.”
That is a signature significant statement from a genuine partisan hack and an actual idiot. Reading any more of your comment that’s likely full of one rationalization and deflection after another would be futile.
You have a nice day Svelaz.
Signature Significance: Signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant. SOURCE
Steve,
Just scroll past Sleezevez. It’s comments are not worth reading and not worth responding to.
You asked me to watch your videos. I gave you an honest assessment. That you can’t handle a honest assessment speaks volumes about your sensitivity to criticism. Dershowitz IS an idiot, I stand by that statement because it’s true. If he can’t understand why Fox News settled he clearly doesn’t understand the whole case. He’s just trying to validate his relevance as a lawyer by making these idiotic analyses without understanding the underlying issues in the case. It’s pretty obvious he’s completely clueless about why they settled. Even Turley knows.
Svelaz wrote, “I gave you an honest assessment.”
You’re a lying internet troll.
Cya.
Witherspoon, now you’re just making yourself look more stupid by making these asinine comments. I was indeed being honest with you. I DID give you an honest assessment of what I thought of your videos. You just lost your mind and went all stupid because you couldn’t handle honest criticism or at least MY opinion. I notice you get all emotional and irrational when you can’t handle criticism or don’t have a reasonable rebuttal. Five year olds have more sense than you when they argue.
“Dershowitz IS an idiot, “
What did Trump say and why is it wrong?
You can’t handle such a question because it asks for data and you produce hundreds of replies that rely on whatever you choose to make up.
“Witherspoon, Dershowitz is an idiot. He’s a lawyer and demanding Dominion, a private company, to publicly disclose their algorithms for scrutiny would be a fair demand IF there was evidence of tampering and fraud. “
Wrong. Dominion is contracted by government to count ballots. Therefore they must be 100% transparent.
Svelaz wrote, “It’s entire business model relied on lying to it’s viewers incessantly and keeping them in this silo of ignorance while they knew full well they were not telling the truth. That’s how they made their money. By keeping their gullible viewers from going somewhere else for their news by giving them what they wanted.”
Propaganda Is Destroying Trust In The Fourth Estate and Wreaking Havoc On Society
Defamation is illegal, not free speech.
Watch both of the videos I posted and learn.
I stated a fact: defamation is illegal, not free speech.
Anonymous wrote, “I stated a fact: defamation is illegal, not free speech.”
I didn’t dispute that fact, you fool. I gave you additional information related to this defamation case and if you don’t learn anything from that information than you’re likely an idiot.
In the United States of America the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The implications of your fact statement in context shows me that you appear to be thinking that if you’re accused then you’re guilty.
Defamation is an accusation that has to be proven in court, otherwise you’re just pissin-in-the-wind.
“The implications of your fact statement in context shows me that you appear to be thinking that if you’re accused then you’re guilty.”
BS. You inferred something that was NOT implied. Don’t claim that I implied something I did NOT imply and do not believe.
“Defamation is an accusation that has to be proven in court”
Duh.
Anonymous wrote, “BS. You inferred something that was NOT implied. Don’t claim that I implied something I did NOT imply and do not believe.”
Since at no time did I state that defamation is legal, I think you’re lying, but heck, here’s your chance to prove me wrong.
Exactly what were you implying when you wrote this single statement “Defamation is illegal, not free speech.” as your only statement in your reply to two of my comments.
Be very specific.
I’ll hold my breath as I wait.
“at no time did I state that defamation is legal”
And I didn’t say that you stated that.
You did say “The fact that none of the free speech advocacy groups came out in support of Fox News on this one is signature significant that partisan advocacy now fully trumps constitutional rights advocacy in these groups.”
That they are free speech advocacy groups does NOT suggest that they have to come out on the defendant’s side in a *defamation* case. Defamation is not free speech. When has any free speech advocacy group ever come out in support of the defendant in a defamation suit?
Okay, that’s it, I’m done with this. I’m applying Hanlon’s Razor and walking away from this absurdly moronic conversation. Go spout your ridiculousness elsewhere.
Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
In other words, you have no answer for: When has any free speech advocacy group ever come out in support of the defendant in a defamation suit?
I didn’t see you complaining that they didn’t come out in support of the defendants in Nick Sandmann’s suits.
Anonymous wrote, “In other words, you have no answer for: When has any free speech advocacy group ever come out in support of the defendant in a defamation suit?”
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Anonymous wrote, “I didn’t see you complaining that they didn’t come out in support of the defendants in Nick Sandmann’s suits.”
Geeze what a dang fool. You’re dragging the goalpost around the field and comparing apples to oranges.
Side Note: Maybe you aren’t aware of how the ACLU, yes the ACLU, has been harassing Nick Sandmann.
This deflection is over.
Genius, that razor cuts both ways.
You certainly haven’t presented any evidence of “the ACLU … harassing Nick Sandmann.”
Steve Witherspoon: A wonderful comment, thanks
Fox’s settlement was a political contribution to the left. Just a more subtle one than Zuckerberg.
This is not a legal precedent but it will be a precedent for Fox. Now Fox will be hesitant to allow guests to speak freely about “controversial” claims (which will be called “misinformation” by left-wing commentators) on the theory that Fox is “endorsing” those claims. No other media outlet is likely to be subject to that kind of limitation. It will be said that Fox can only put on claims that it “knows” the claim if false. But that it impossible to determine by a media company that hosts a wide-range of guests. Outside of mathematics, or outside of simple facts like when someone was born, what is false and what is true cannot be determined with certaintly by anyone. We are still debating whether Oswald killed Kennedy by himself. Of course, this result could be explained as a result of the handling of the case by the judge. It appears that he limited the defense by Fox by ruling that their attorneys would not be allowed to argue that guests should be permitted to speak freely when discussing “newsworthy” subjects, such as the assertion by Trump that the election result was rigged. But now other left-leaning judges will likely to enforce such a restriction against Fox.
I will admit I am disappointed that the trial didn’t go thru. It would have exposed Fox News to even more damaging revelations on how much it was lying to it’s viewers and the nation. Fox News was deliberately lying and paid dearly for it. They were so fearful of how bad the damage would be and knew that the brand stood to lose a lot of support if the trial went ahead. Paying $787,500,000 to avoid any more exposure on just how much Fox News lies was a hefty price.
Hopefully Turley will offer a further analysis of why it was bad for Fox News to go on trial, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he ignored it and went right back to the Hunter Biden “scandal” narrative.
Fox News is not done however, there is still the lawsuit from Smartmatic and their higher claims for damages. The settlement with Dominion set a chain reaction that will allow others to sue Fox News for defamation since it has been ruled that Fox News was deliberately lying about what those companies were doing while knowing the truth. Fox News also made express statements of fact. It’s what got it in trouble and would likely continue to get it in trouble if it doesn’t change it’s current “journalism” practices.
“Murdoch was encouraging balanced coverage.”
No he wasn’t. He was not doing his job stopping the wanton lying that got him and his company in this mess. He was more afraid of losing viewers than being concerned about “balanced coverage”. Will Fox News offer a serious apology on air? Will they have their TV personalities acknowledge their failure at maintaining “journalistic integrity”? We’ll have to see. Fox News is not out of the woods yet. They may still have to pay more with the Smartmatic lawsuit. Keep in mind that Fox News already paid a lot of money in lawyers and discovery. They may have already spent a billion dollars just getting to this point.
Fox News lied to you and will continue to do so as it is their business model.
To Svelez–I always am interested in your views. Would you please address MSNBC as a truthful, unbiased, reliable source of news as well as the reporting of a couple of their most prominent hosts? I am sincere in this request.
Booglhiem, MSNBC is truthful or at least more truthful than Fox News. Unbiased? No, every News organization is going to have some biases and MSNBC is no exception. The distinction is vs. Fox News MSNBC doesn’t have to resort to outright lying like Fox News does to keep their viewers. Fox News is more of an opinion/entertainment network than a serious news organization. No news source is always going to be 100% reliable, but those that are more consistently accurate can be deemed more reliable than others. Fox News does not meet that criteria, by a long shot.
The key to being informed to the best possible ideal would be to take in all sources and compare. That would include both conservative leaning and liberal leaning news sources. But, as demonstrated by Fox News, conservatives news sources require a bit more skepticism in determining their honesty.
With what you learned yesterday from my 8:20 PM post to “Then There Were Nine” and what you have read from Turley today, do you now understand why until now Turley has not commented on the Dominion case?
I can assure you your animosity for Turley will win you no listeners beyond those who share your spite. Neither will you and yours distract the majority of all cable television viewers who prefer what they get from Fox over what they get from CNN, MSNBC, etc. But you keep barking up that tree and pissing into the wind. While what you spew disturbs objective and rational persons’ sensibilities, it is nevertheless entertaining to experience your elaborate waste of time and effort.
Ron A. Hoffman. You stated that I was shown multiple times why Turley didn’t comment about the Fox News v. Dominion case but couldn’t provide any evidence.
Turley could comment about then case anytime. Nothing prevented him from commenting on it. Except maybe his contract with Fox News. I don’t harbor any animosity towards Turley. I only have issues with his hypocrisy and disingenuousness when they present themselves. This is a forum where different ideas and views are freely expressed and that includes criticisms, mockery, ridicule, and yes even bad opinions about Turley. You’re free to have your own opinions about me and that all it is. I’m fine with it. I take comfort in knowing you are no different than anyone else here.
You haven’t answered the question. With what you learned yesterday from my 8:20 PM post to “Then There Were Nine” and what you have read from Turley today, do you now understand why until now Turley has not commented on the Dominion case? Not that he might have, but that why for good reasons he opted not to do so.
This is a forum where different ideas and views should be and are freely expressed, but that should not include hyperbole, ad hominem, being argumentative, and all else that appeals more to emotions than to logic or reason. Once you try expressing your “different ideas and views” that appeal more to intellect than to prejudices you will come to appreciate why it is I am “no different than anyone else here” and why it is you too should be no different yourself.
Ron A. Hoffman,
“This is a forum where different ideas and views should be and are freely expressed, but that should not include hyperbole, ad hominem, being argumentative, and all else that appeals more to emotions than to logic or reason.”
Why would hyperbole, ad hominem, being argumentative, and appeals to emotions not be part of expressing different ideas and points of view. Turley is a free speech absolutist meaning everything should be allowed. Of course to be a true free speech absolutist you would have to allow profanity, and openly racist comments. This site does not allow that. But the rest, should not be an issue.
As to your question, your post included the statement that I had been instructed multiple times why Turley won’t comment on the case which is not true. However his reasoning for not commenting on the case was not enough. Turley is adept at word smithing and parsing semantics or straddling an issue down the middle. His excuse was weak. If he was the type that befits his title he would have found a way to comment on the issue. He opted not to do so because he is employed by Fox News. He provided an analysis to Fox News arguing that many of the voter fraud claims were without evidence. He basically already knew Fox News was lying. He was complicit in their lies. He readily calls out democrats for lying, but when it’s republicans or conservatives he remains mum. If he is the claimed authority in “objective” analysis he wouldn’t have stayed silent.
“Why would hyperbole, ad hominem, being argumentative, and appeals to emotions not be part of expressing different ideas and points of view?” The answer to your question is for the reason of having thoughtful, intellectual, respectful and civil discourse. That you think those aforesaid negative traits are worthy define you as one who is not worthy of the opportunity this blog gives you. That you have been given to understand Turley’s reasons why he did not comment on the case and still cannot respect them enough to accept them is further evidence of your argumentativeness and contentious and quarrelsome nature. Your politics controls you to the detriment of your intellect. You do not serve yourself well here and it seems likely never will.
Isn’t this how free speech should be handled? You can say whatever you wish but if you lie, people harmed can seek relief.
I have not been following the case very much but it does seem that the process worked as it should.
Isn’t lying about a news story to gain an advantage in an election what CNN does every day? What about Hunter’s laptop, Hillary’s bleachbit and spying on Trump?
“While all of the details are not known, the settlement will avoid any trial and any precedent over key legal questions including (1) the line between opinion and fact in the media and (2) the application of the “actual malice” standard to these statements.”
Thanks for that clarification. And your conclusion:
“[The settlement] created concerns even among Fox critics over its impact on the journalism. The settlement means that this will not be a case for the law books, but it will obviously be debated for years to come”
so when does Trump get his billions for the Russian Hoax fraud and Conspiracy?
After this settlement was announced; wanna bet that Trump and his lawyers are openly discussing suing CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and a slew of nationally distributed news papers for intentional defamation due to all the blatant anti-Trump lies they have spewed since 2016. Based on the dollar figures in this settlement; I’m guessing that the total damages asked for in this kind of defamation case(s) would be in the high billions or even in the trillions of dollars.
Watch the left’s back pocket free speech advocacy groups crawl out from under their partisan rocks if something like that were to happen.
Yes, I truly think free speech in the media just took a big hit.
If Trump thought he had a case, he’d already have sued them.
Anonymous – he obviously does have a case. ignoring Statute of Limitations issues, since the guests and commentators on MSNBC and CNN, and many other media outlets, regularly made reckless statements assuming the truth of the Russia-Trump collusion. (“This is the beginning of the end. “The walls are closing in.”)
First of all, why would the law ignore the SoL?
Second of all, members of Trump’s campaign *did* collude with Russians (e.g., both the Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the SC investigation found that Manafort gave polling data to a Russian intelligence asset, Konstantin Kilimnik).
Tell us how there was collusion and while you are at it tell us your definition of collusion. One or the other has to be wrong.
Based on the settlement above Trump would win several billion dollars.
From my vantage point this looks like the poisonous fruit of judicial activism: the judge intentionally hamstrung Fox to ensure it would lose.
No, Fox News harmed itself with their lying. They tried to shield themselves using the argument that the 1st amendment allowed them to lie. That was not a solid argument and it was shot down pretty quick in court. Dominion had an incredibly strong case and Fox News knew that was going to be a problem. They were desperately trying to settle for a while and Dominion which is worth $80 million made a very good decision to take the settlement. They will be getting that money a lot faster and avoid years of appeals. A $787 million check for a company that is worth $80 million is certainly worth settling. Fox News paid dearly for it’s failure to adhere to “journalistic integrity”. That’s good enough for me, but there is more to come with the Smartmatic lawsuit. Fox News may be paying out more to avoid another trial and damaging revelations from that case.
“No, Fox News harmed itself with their lying. “
No. Your lies make you a joke. That is why reading past your first sentence is a waste of time.
Uh, Anonymous–Fox hosts admitted, in emails, that they KNEW Trump was lying about the votes being rigged, but they published the lies anyway.
“the judge intentionally hamstrung Fox”
How?
By finding in summary judgment that their false statements were false? something more?
The judge’s ruling needs to be overturned based on the 7th Amendment.
Professor Turley, I take it you will be at the Supreme Court today (4/19) for Counterman v.Colorado, a big free speech case. I will be there!!