This Just In...Fox News Channel is bunch of lying fucks

[Stratocaster]

@RitterSport

So, as understand it, it’s no longer a question about whether Fox lied – the jury will be told that Fox knowing lied (that may be redundant). The question is whether there was malice.

Not a lawyer…I thought “knowingly lied” was itself the definition of malice. What I believe I’ve heard multiple times was either a deliberate lie or a statement made with reckless disregard for what is true is what’ll put you in the soup. As always, my memory is not the most reliable source.

[Aspenglow]

@Ponderoid

That’s grounds for Fox to appeal, yes? What are their chances of success, and how would that affect the trial for the “actual malice” part?

I’m sure they will. But judges don’t like to be reversed on appeal, so this judge is fairly sure his ruling will withstand appellate scrutiny.

Fox will appeal in any case and likely won’t prevail. With his ruling, the judge saved everyone a bunch of time and hassle by ruling as he did.

[k9bfriender]

@Stratocaster

Not a lawyer…I thought “knowingly lied” was itself the definition of malice.

If that were the case, The Onion would have been sued out of existence thousands of years ago.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@k9bfriender

If that were the case, The Onion would have been sued out of existence thousands of years ago.

So is Fox going to pivot to the “hey, it was just a joke! Comeon man, can’t you take a joke?” defense?

They’ve already done the “we’re not a news organization, we’re just entertainment, and no reasonable person expects that we report factual news” defense in another case, right?

[k9bfriender]

I think that’s their only reasonable defense. The claim that their lies didn’t actually cause harm because no one believes them.

Maybe they reveal that their 25 year history was just one big April Fools day joke that got a little out of hand.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@Aspenglow

@Ponderoid

That’s grounds for Fox to appeal, yes? What are their chances of success, and how would that affect the trial for the “actual malice” part?

I’m sure they will. But judges don’t like to be reversed on appeal, so this judge is fairly sure his ruling will withstand appellate scrutiny.

Fox will appeal in any case and likely won’t prevail. With his ruling, the judge saved everyone a bunch of time and hassle by ruling as he did.

It’s my understanding that Dominion ( and others ) were concerned that if the case went to trial, it would turn into a sideshow (shit show) regarding the truth or falsity of election fraud in the 2020 Presidential election. By issuing this ruling, the court has effectively put a stop to this scenario.

Do I have this right?

[Aspenglow]

I hadn’t heard that, but it is definitely a likely outcome and could well be one of the reasons the judge took this course of action. He has narrowed the issues at trial a lot.

Score one more for this judge! I think you have it right.

[Ponderoid]

@Aspenglow

With his ruling, the judge saved everyone a bunch of time and hassle by ruling as he did.

Will the “actual malice” trial have to be put on hold pending the outcome of the appeal?

[Aspenglow]

I suppose it will, if Fox appeals immediately. On the bright side, the appellate courts seem far less willing to accommodate delay in these proceedings than they previously were.

Still, honestly, this one could take some time. I’ll be disappointed if the trial is delayed, but not surprised.

You replied to @Ann_Hedonia but you quoted me. Apologies if you hoped to hear from Ann instead!

[Ponderoid]

@Aspenglow

Apologies if you hoped to hear from Ann instead!

That’s fine. I’d love to hear from Ann too, or anybody else with real legal experience. All I know is what I learned from L&O, LegalEagle, and Lowering the Bar.

[JohnT]

@Euphonious_Polemic

So is Fox going to pivot to the “hey, it was just a joke! Comeon man, can’t you take a joke?” defense?

I don’t know. Some of the slides released on Wednesday are pretty damning to this defense:

Katie Phang

Link goes to Twitter thread with multiple communications, some with Rupert.

[Mijin]

@Steve_MB

Fox’s latest argument for keeping Dominion lawsuit discovery out of the public record: they fear that Newsmax and OAN and the rest will learn their sooper sekrit techniques for spreading lies and propaganda.

Yeah it doesn’t exactly take a genius. Tucker’s show is almost 100% about strawmanning some imaginary extreme position, followed by asserting his own position, backed up with no evidence whatsoever.

Rhetoric like “Did Putin ever call you a racist?” is painful to watch. But, he knows his audience.
He knows they aren’t tuning in to engage their thinky part. They just want to boo what they consider to be the other tribe, and get pumped up about fighting “back”.

[silenus]

@Aspenglow

I hadn’t heard that, but it is definitely a likely outcome and could well be one of the reasons the judge took this course of action. He has narrowed the issues at trial a lot.

Now all Dominion has to prove is “malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.” The first is hard. The second is right there in the internal e-mails. I think the judge granted summary judgement on the rest so the jury can focus on just this. He also probably wanted it to go to a jury so there wouldn’t be so much bullshit spewed about a “biased judge” and whatnot. The decision will still get appealed, but a jury decision will be harder to overturn.

Then Faux News gets to deal with Symantec and their $1B+ lawsuit. Dominion has already done all the heavy lifting.

[DavidNRockies]

FYI … copied from Delaware’s Jury Instructions:

DEFAMATION - PUNITIVE DAMAGES – MEDIA DEFENDANT For [plaintiff’s name] to recover punitive damages, you must find that [defendant’s name] acted with “actual malice.” A publication is made with actual malice if it is made with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it is false. If you find that [plaintiff’s name] has established the essential elements of [his/her/its] claim,and if you also find, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, that [defendant’s name] acted with actual malice in publishing the defamatory statement in question, then you may award [plaintiff’s name] punitive damages in addition to actual damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish the offender and serve as an example to others. You must decide whether to award punitive damages and, if so, how much to award. In making this decision, you must consider the reprehensibility or outrageousness of [defendant’s name]'s conduct and the amount of punitive damages that will deter [defendant’s name] and others like [him/her/it] from similar conduct in the future. You may consider [defendant’s name]'s financial condition for that purpose only. Any award of punitive damages must bear a reasonable relationship to [plaintiff’s name]'s compensatory damages. If you find that [plaintiff’s name] is entitled to punitive damages, you must state the amount of punitive damages separately on the special-verdict form.

This doesn’t feel like an insurmountably high bar for Dominion.

[kaylasdad99]

@Ponderoid

All I know is what I learned from L&O, LegalEagle, and Lowering the Bar.

Still beats my Harvey Birdman and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.

[Shoeless]

@silenus

Then Faux News gets to deal with Symantec and their $1B+ lawsuit. Dominion has already done all the heavy lifting.

Smartmatic, not Symantec, right?

[SunUp]

Correct.

But if Symantec wants to pile on here, I say let 'em…

[Buck_Godot]

@silenus

I think the judge granted summary judgement on the rest so the jury can focus on just this.

I wonder if the Judge was also worried that some of jurors might be conspiracy theorists who are so emotionally invested in the Dominion conspiracy theory that they might be immune to evidence. This way the claimant can ask directly in jury selection, “Do you believe that Dominion was involved in a conspiracy to change votes?” and exclude any who say yes.

[Stratocaster]

@k9bfriender

If that were the case, The Onion would have been sued out of existence thousands of years ago.

Now, now, we both know that parody does not constitute a lie. Plus, I believe The Onion has only been in existence since the 18th century.

[k9bfriender]

@Stratocaster

I believe The Onion has only been in existence since the 18th century.

18th century B.C.