04-17-2023, 05:23 PM
So the suit has been delayed a day--perhaps so the two parties can discuss out of court settlement.
There was a good discussion of options and consequences on Katy Tur today.
Fox has a tremendous incentive to settle, because if they go to court, their "stars" will likely be on the witness stand explaining
how they promoted a lie they did not believe--Tucker, Sean, Laura and Maria--always while inciting their listeners to believe it was the MSM journalists that got up every morning to "lie to your faces." That theater COULD hurt their brand more than a billion dollar settlement. (But liberals would be foolish to think that finding out Fox stars lie all the time will somehow jolt the MAGA viewers out of the bubble. They have been groomed to believe, falsely, that the MSM does what Fox ACTUALLY does every day as part of its business model. There will likely be a period of a month or two as the counter-narrative is stitched into place, relying heavily on "both sidesism" to reduce the cognitive dissonance.)
Dominion also has a tremendous incentive NOT to settle. The Fox lies cost them their future as a company.
Fox's lawyers warn us the suit endangers press freedom and first Amendment Rights. Somehow. Who would China and Russia side with here?
Dominion's lawyers will remind us that if Fox gets off, there is virtually no such thing as defamation. If there is, and it is illegal, then
this should be the case that establishes a limit on the harm of "free speech" for profit.
Also, if Fox is acquitted or gets a silent settlement, it's likely the RW media will respond as Trump did after his party got him off for obstruction during Russiagate and then refused to impeach him for misuse of his office--i.e., they'll see no limits/risks to lying whatsoever, with an angry, uncritical audience of millions lapping up whatever they are served.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/16/business/media/fox-news-dominion-trial.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20230417&instance_id=90380&nl=the-morning®i_id=115336211&segment_id=130628&te=1&user_id=98d040cfc463129084276e2affe091f0
Some experts . . . believe the case’s significance could grow beyond its relevance to the current disinformation-plagued political climate. They see an opportunity for the Supreme Court to eventually take the case as a vehicle to revisit libel law and the “actual malice” standard. The justices have not done that since a 1989 case involving a losing candidate for municipal office in Ohio who successfully sued a newspaper after it published a false story about him a week before the election. The court said that a public figure cannot recover damages unless there was “clear and convincing proof” of actual malice.
The actual malice standard has been vital for individual journalists and media outlets who make mistakes — as long as they are honest mistakes. But some scholars like Mr. Logan — as well as two conservative Supreme Court justices, Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — have argued that “actual malice” should be reconsidered as too high a standard. Justice Thomas specifically cited as a reason “the proliferation of falsehoods.”...
Judge Davis has expressed considerable skepticism toward Fox in the courtroom. He issued a sanction against Fox last week when Dominion disclosed that the company had not revealed details about Mr. Murdoch’s involvement in Fox News’s affairs, ruling that Dominion had a right to conduct further depositions at Fox’s expense. In a letter to the judge on Friday, Fox said, “We understand the court’s concerns, apologize, and are committed to clear and full communication with the court moving forward.”
But the judge does not have the final say. Twelve men and women from Delaware will ultimately decide the case. And defamation suits so rarely prevail, it’s also reasonable to consider the possibility that Fox does win — and what a 2024 election looks like with an emboldened pro-Trump media.
There was a good discussion of options and consequences on Katy Tur today.
Fox has a tremendous incentive to settle, because if they go to court, their "stars" will likely be on the witness stand explaining
how they promoted a lie they did not believe--Tucker, Sean, Laura and Maria--always while inciting their listeners to believe it was the MSM journalists that got up every morning to "lie to your faces." That theater COULD hurt their brand more than a billion dollar settlement. (But liberals would be foolish to think that finding out Fox stars lie all the time will somehow jolt the MAGA viewers out of the bubble. They have been groomed to believe, falsely, that the MSM does what Fox ACTUALLY does every day as part of its business model. There will likely be a period of a month or two as the counter-narrative is stitched into place, relying heavily on "both sidesism" to reduce the cognitive dissonance.)
Dominion also has a tremendous incentive NOT to settle. The Fox lies cost them their future as a company.
Fox's lawyers warn us the suit endangers press freedom and first Amendment Rights. Somehow. Who would China and Russia side with here?
Dominion's lawyers will remind us that if Fox gets off, there is virtually no such thing as defamation. If there is, and it is illegal, then
this should be the case that establishes a limit on the harm of "free speech" for profit.
Also, if Fox is acquitted or gets a silent settlement, it's likely the RW media will respond as Trump did after his party got him off for obstruction during Russiagate and then refused to impeach him for misuse of his office--i.e., they'll see no limits/risks to lying whatsoever, with an angry, uncritical audience of millions lapping up whatever they are served.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/16/business/media/fox-news-dominion-trial.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20230417&instance_id=90380&nl=the-morning®i_id=115336211&segment_id=130628&te=1&user_id=98d040cfc463129084276e2affe091f0
Some experts . . . believe the case’s significance could grow beyond its relevance to the current disinformation-plagued political climate. They see an opportunity for the Supreme Court to eventually take the case as a vehicle to revisit libel law and the “actual malice” standard. The justices have not done that since a 1989 case involving a losing candidate for municipal office in Ohio who successfully sued a newspaper after it published a false story about him a week before the election. The court said that a public figure cannot recover damages unless there was “clear and convincing proof” of actual malice.
The actual malice standard has been vital for individual journalists and media outlets who make mistakes — as long as they are honest mistakes. But some scholars like Mr. Logan — as well as two conservative Supreme Court justices, Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — have argued that “actual malice” should be reconsidered as too high a standard. Justice Thomas specifically cited as a reason “the proliferation of falsehoods.”...
Judge Davis has expressed considerable skepticism toward Fox in the courtroom. He issued a sanction against Fox last week when Dominion disclosed that the company had not revealed details about Mr. Murdoch’s involvement in Fox News’s affairs, ruling that Dominion had a right to conduct further depositions at Fox’s expense. In a letter to the judge on Friday, Fox said, “We understand the court’s concerns, apologize, and are committed to clear and full communication with the court moving forward.”
But the judge does not have the final say. Twelve men and women from Delaware will ultimately decide the case. And defamation suits so rarely prevail, it’s also reasonable to consider the possibility that Fox does win — and what a 2024 election looks like with an emboldened pro-Trump media.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
