Dominion files $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News

Amiga · Apr 18, 2023

790m! Dang.

Buck Turgidson · Apr 18, 2023

Well, there's still hope for the SmartMatic suit

Amiga · Apr 18, 2023

Smartmatic next

CCorn · Apr 18, 2023

Buck Turgidson said: ↑

Well, there's still hope for the SmartMatic suit
Click to expand...

Fox is getting another check ready

Major · Apr 18, 2023

Reeko said: ↑

so they didn’t even get close to the amount they were seeking…this better come with all sorts of on-air public apologies and telling the truth about what they did to their millions of viewers or Dominion just wasted everyones time
Click to expand...

On the flipside, Dominion generated like $20-$40MM in revenues per year, so they got several decades worth of revenues.

Reeko · Apr 18, 2023

Major said: ↑

On the flipside, Dominion generated like $20-$40MM in revenues per year, so they got several decades worth of revenues.
Click to expand...

Idc about that…Fox News is popping bottles tonight if all they have to do is write a check for half of what Dominion was seeking and then call it a day

Reeko · Apr 18, 2023

this was all a complete waste of time

No Worries · Apr 18, 2023

Fox News must face Smartmatic's lawsuit over election

NEW YORK, Feb 14 (Reuters) - A New York state appeals court rejected Fox News' bid to dismiss a multibillion-dollar defamation lawsuit accusing the network of falsely accusing an electronic voting systems company of helping rig the 2020 U.S. presidential election to favor Joe Biden over Donald Trump.

In a 5-0 decision, the Appellate Division in Manhattan said Smartmatic USA alleged in "detailed fashion" how Fox News and some anchors and guests "effectively endorsed and participated in (defamation) with reckless disregard for, or serious doubts about" whether the company engaged in election fraud.

Smartmatic had sought $2.7 billion in damages, saying Fox News knowingly lied about its technology and how it was used in order to boost ratings, and keep Trump supporters from defecting to the right-wing networks Newsmax and One America News.

Amiga · Apr 18, 2023

Reeko said: ↑

so they didn’t even get close to the amount they were seeking…this better come with all sorts of on-air public apologies and telling the truth about what they did to their millions of viewers or Dominion just wasted everyones time
Click to expand...

Always ask for some unrealistic number. Can’t blame a busn for pocketing nearly 800b.

Major · Apr 18, 2023

Reeko said: ↑

Idc about that…Fox News is popping bottles tonight if all they have to do is write a check for half of what Dominion was seeking and then call it a day
Click to expand...

There wasnt much doubt that Dominion had a strong case - but no one really knew how they were justifying the damage amounts. Realistically, they weren't going get $1B+ from a jury, and if they did, it would be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court and that would take years. The number amount is more than Fox likely would have ended up owing - the benefit to Fox is not having their people have to testify and get cross-examined.

superfob · Apr 18, 2023

No Worries said: ↑

[NBC] Dominion and Fox News reach $787.5 million settlement in defamation lawsuit

The terms of the settlement were not immediately available.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I guess Dominion made sure to take away potential jury reducing the damage award and they took half up front. Also wished for more justice, but at least set precedence for Q Anon lies being amplified.

Xopher · Apr 18, 2023

I do not believe this information about a settlement. It is not showing on foxnews.com

Reeko · Apr 18, 2023

Major said: ↑

There wasnt much doubt that Dominion had a strong case - but no one really knew how they were justifying the damage amounts. Realistically, they weren't going get $1B+ from a jury, and if they did, it would be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court and that would take years. The number amount is more than Fox likely would have ended up owing - the benefit to Fox is not having their people have to testify and get cross-examined.
Click to expand...

I simply do not care that Dominion increased their annual revenue with this joke of a settlement while Fox News avoids getting exposed in court…at all

Invisible Fan · Apr 18, 2023

Rupert will need to up his lying game to pay for past Ls.

Can he get hillbillies to storm the Pentagon?

Reeko · Apr 18, 2023

txtony said: ↑

Always ask for some unrealistic number. Can’t blame a busn for pocketing nearly 800b.
Click to expand...

What’s stopping them from exposing Fox News in court and getting this same amount or more? Fox News was ready to show the Simpsons as part of their defense for crying out loud

they would’ve gotten hammered and exposed

nobody would’ve cared about this whole situation if all it did was end up with Fox News paying half the amount they were seeking and that’s the end

Xopher · Apr 18, 2023

I just wanted to see Rupert on the stand yelling "You can't handle the truth!"

NewRoxFan · Apr 18, 2023

Ultimately, if you can write a big enough check, the laws don't apply. But the CNN talking head at least got a chance to share his bemusement...

Amiga · Apr 18, 2023

Reeko said: ↑

What’s stopping them from exposing Fox News in court and getting this same amount or more? Fox News was ready to show the Simpsons as part of their defense for crying out loud

they would’ve gotten hammered and exposed

nobody would’ve cared about this whole situation if all it did was end up with Fox News paying half the amount they were seeking and that’s the end
Click to expand...

1 juror

Invisible Fan · Apr 18, 2023

Dominion v. Fox: Could case be weaponized against freedom of press?

This week is set to bring a major test of modern freedom of the press in an era of disinformation.

The case of Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News has its roots in conspiracy theories aired about voting machines after Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Fox News argues that it was simply airing newsworthy allegations when it repeated those falsehoods. The defamation case brought by Dominion represents a “profound threat to the First Amendment,” Fox’s lawyers argued in a filing. If it loses, the network argues, it would be a journalistic disaster, opening networks and newspapers to all kinds of lawsuits.

The truth is the North Star of journalism, and the Supreme Court has carved out broad protections to allow reporters to do their work. A defamation trial brought against Fox News could have wide-ranging ramifications.

In one respect, the outcome is not in doubt: A Delaware judge has already ruled that conspiracy theories about Dominion and its voting machines aired by Fox News are false and constitute defamation per se.

“The statements at issue were dramatically different than the truth,” said Superior Court Judge Eric Davis in a ruling. “In fact, although it cannot be attributed directly to Fox’s statements, it is noteworthy that some Americans still believe the election was rigged.”

But a high legal bar still remains: The company must prove that Fox acted with actual malice.

The $1.6 billion defamation suit, originally set to begin today, has been delayed reportedly while the parties consider whether to settle.

There is a lot more than $1.6 billion in damages at stake. For one thing, the Dominion case revisits the widespread conspiracy theories about election fraud, and the extent to which these lies and the broader problems of disinformation are threatening the country’s democratic institutions.

Some free speech advocates are concerned a jury ruling against Fox could indeed have a chilling effect on journalists’ constitutional duty to inform the public. But others maintain that giving its audience what it wanted, even at the expense of the truth, should render Fox News legally vulnerable.

“From my perspective, I think Dominion should win this case, because I do think this is a clear case of actual malice,” says Genelle Belmas, professor of journalism at the University of Kansas. “I think the judge laid it out with help from Dominion pretty clearly in this case. But in the larger sense, that doesn’t fix the problem of disinformation, and it could be weaponized, potentially weaponized, against press freedoms.”

“And if Fox wins, then, of course, that can be weaponized, too,” she continues, citing recent discussions about the case in which a Fox victory could be framed as vindicating the lies about the 2020 election.

The Dominion case comes at a moment when some thinkers and government officials – especially conservatives – are starting to question the extent of the news media’s special free speech protections.

Judge Eric Davis of Delaware Superior Court is shown in a sketch on April 17, 2023, in Wilmington, Delaware, announcing a delay in the start of the defamation trial against Fox News.

New York Times v. Sullivan
For nearly 60 years, the nation’s legal traditions have more or less shielded news outlets from costly defamation lawsuits brought by anyone deemed a “public figure,” even when the information is false and damages that figure’s reputation.

As a technical legal term, “actual malice” has long set a sky-high bar for any public figure to sue a news organization for defamation. Coined in the seminal 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, the term was defined as publishing any defamatory information with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The Supreme Court has also defined actual malice as publishing a “calculated falsehood.”

“Times v. Sullivan does set a high bar,” says Professor Belmas. “When I talk to my students about it, I always give them the famous quote from Justice [William] Brennan’s majority decision, about the First Amendment being ‘a profound national commitment’ to a principle of free speech: ‘debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’”

The case was not about the Times’ journalism, but about an advertisement placed by an Alabama civil rights organization, soliciting donations for Martin Luther King Jr.’s legal defense. The ad described clashes between protesters and police, and contained factual inaccuracies. A local official successfully sued the newspaper for libel under Alabama law.

The Supreme Court overturned the Alabama court’s decision 9-0, and used what was a minor case to proclaim this larger principle about the meaning of free speech and freedom of the press. Just the specter of defamation could cause a “chilling effect” on public debate, so in this case a unanimous Supreme Court set a significant legal barrier for public officials trying to sue news organizations.

In subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the actual malice standard to include “public figures,” as well as “limited public figures” who are thrust into the “vortex” of public debate.

“There’s a line in Sullivan that I really love that basically says, quoting from another case, ‘Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate,’” says Andrew Geronimo, director of the First Amendment Clinic at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.

“But the idea of actual malice is that the news media should be able to talk freely about public figures, and most particularly in Times v. Sullivan, our government officials, and we should be able to get some things wrong,” he continues. “We should rely not upon a court punishing somebody with a monetary judgment, or an injunction barring them from speech. We should be relying upon more speech, and people should be able to win out in the marketplace of ideas.”

“Effective immunity from liability”?
Like the idea of a marketplace of ideas, however, the principles that underlie the special legal protections for news organizations have come under assault. The news media needs to be reined in, many believe, not afforded special privileges in the public square.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has also taken direct aim at Times v. Sullivan, backing legislation that would make it easier for plaintiffs to prove actual malice. Calling for “media accountability,” he supports legislation that would also limit the definition of a “public figure,” allowing some plaintiffs to seek damages from the news media under the less stringent standard of negligence.

“We’ve seen over the last generation legacy media outlets increasingly divorce themselves from the truth and instead try to elevate preferred narratives and partisan activism over reporting the facts,” Governor DeSantis said during an event on defamation in February. “When the media attacks me, I have a platform to fight back. When they attack everyday citizens, these individuals don’t have the adequate resources to fight back. In Florida, we want to stand up for the little guy against these massive media conglomerates.”

At least two conservative Supreme Court justices have also attacked the Sullivan decision. Justice Clarence Thomas has criticized the actual malice standard from an originalist perspective, saying not only is the principle not in the Constitution, but it also has no historical precedents.

“The proliferation of falsehoods is, and always has been, a serious matter,” wrote Justice Thomas in a 2021 dissent from a case that dismissed the defamation claims of an Albanian public figure. “Instead of continuing to insulate those who perpetrate lies from traditional remedies like libel suits, we should give them only the protection the First Amendment requires.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, too, says it is time to take another look at the actual malice standard. He argues that the news media landscape has changed so profoundly since the 1960s that media’s special protections – “an effective immunity from liability,” he wrote – may actually be dangerous in the digital age, in which there are far fewer economic resources to invest in reporting, fact-checking, and editorial oversight.

“What started in 1964 with a decision to tolerate the occasional falsehood to ensure robust reporting by a comparative handful of print and broadcast outlets has evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods by means and on a scale previously unimaginable,” he wrote.

There is a certain irony that many conservative thinkers want to scale back a protection that would help Fox in this case, and many conservative media outlets have criticized Governor DeSantis’ efforts.

But there has been a general consensus among legal experts that the evidence presented in the Dominion case just might be enough to clear the high bar of actual malice.

The case has unveiled a host of text messages and emails between Fox personalities and company executives that seem to reveal they did know the allegations were false, calling them everything from “absurd” to “bat---- crazy.”

“I do think this is a clear case of actual malice, which is either knowing falsity or acting with reckless disregard to the truth,” says Ms. Belmas at the University of Kansas. “But even if Dominion wins, it doesn’t fix the underlying problems with the media.”
Click to expand...

Reeko · Apr 18, 2023

txtony said: ↑

1 juror
Click to expand...

stop it, this settlement is a joke if doesn’t come with more stipulations

Fox News was gonna get exposed for everyone to see, but they avoided it all with a check

Forums

Dominion files $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Buck Turgidson Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

CCorn Member

Major Member

Reeko Member

Reeko Member

No Worries Contributing Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Major Member

superfob Mommy WOW! I'm a Big Kid now.

Xopher Member
Supporting Member

Reeko Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Reeko Member

Xopher Member
Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Reeko Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Dominion files $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News

Amiga 10 years ago... Supporting Member

Buck Turgidson Member

Amiga 10 years ago... Supporting Member

CCorn Member

Major Member

Reeko Member

Reeko Member

No Worries Contributing Member

Amiga 10 years ago... Supporting Member

Major Member

superfob Mommy WOW! I'm a Big Kid now.

Xopher Member Supporting Member

Reeko Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Reeko Member

Xopher Member Supporting Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

Amiga 10 years ago... Supporting Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Reeko Member

Share This Page

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Xopher Member
Supporting Member

Xopher Member
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member