Dominion Sues Fox News for $1.6 billion - Still Considering Suits against Fox personalities

[DaisyDay]

Sure. But I read the latest Motion. That people who worked there privately discussed their own opinions is fine. That all views - Trump's, Dominion's and everyone else's view on this newsworthy issue was aired does not amount to defamation.

They are not being sued for expressing their private opinions - which contradicted the views they did declare as fact on national broadcasts. This is what is so interesting - their private views were that Trump lost and Biden won the election, there was no reason to believe that Dominion was created in Venezuela to rig the elections there, that there was no significant voter fraud, that there was zero evidence that Dominion paid kickbacks to people in charge of choosing the voting machines in their states and districts.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23685186/fox-dominion-216-filing.pdf

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

They are not being sued for expressing their private opinions - which contradicted the views they did declare as fact on national broadcasts. This is what is so interesting - their private views were that Trump lost and Biden won the election, there was no reason to believe that Dominion was created in Venezuela to rig the elections there, that there was no significant voter fraud, that there was zero evidence that Dominion paid kickbacks to people in charge of choosing the voting machines in their states and districts.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23685186/fox-dominion-216-filing.pdf

I am familiar with the suit. The allegations do not arise to the level of defamation.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Except, it does. Or rather, it presents strong evidence to one of the hardest to prove points in the defamation suit - actual malice.

There's four points that have to be shown by Dominion to prove defamation.

1. There was a false statement made about them
2. The statement was made to a third party
3. The statement was made made with knowing that it was false or there was reckless disregard for the truth
4. The statement caused some sort of harm.

Point #3 is actual malice, and the hardest to prove. There is an extremely high bar for that. These messages are as clear evidence of it - they knew they were repeating/promoting lies, but did it anyway - as you can get.
This is bad, bad, bad for Fox News.

Well, that is Dominion's allegation. The Countersuit filed states "Dominion’s lawsuit serves only to “generate headlines, chill First Amendment-protected speech, and unjustly enrich” the company’s investors- who are asking for an insane amount of damages it cannot prove - who according to Fox’s filing have valued Dominion at roughly $80 million." per Reuters.

We shall see.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Privately? There was nothing private about it. It was broadcast as fact.

The discussions and texts were private. On air, different views were presented - Trump's view, Dominion's view and pretty much anyone who wanted to weigh in on a newsworthy issue.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It does if the views expressed by the Fox personnel are defamatory. I mean, duh.

A plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove that you published the statement with “actual malice,” a higher level of fault.

What is actual malice, under the law:
The actual malice standard means that the plaintiff must prove that you either (1) knew the defamatory statement was false; or (2) acted with reckless disregard for the truth. -entertained serious doubts as to whether the statement was truthful.

In evaluating whether someone acted with reckless disregard for the truth, courts look to the person’s state of mind at the time the statement was published, considering factors such as whether the person had time to investigate the story or needed to publish it quickly and whether the source of the information appeared to be reliable and trustworthy.

Again...this is a legal question to be determined.

 

[DaisyDay]

I am familiar with the suit. The allegations do not arise to the level of defamation.

Why not? Night after night Fox proclaimed that Dominion defrauded Republicans, that the machines were completely unreliable, to the point where Dominion lost a lot of business. How is that not defamation?

A plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove that you published the statement with “actual malice,” a higher level of fault.

What is actual malice, under the law:
The actual malice standard means that the plaintiff must prove that you either (1) knew the defamatory statement was false; or (2) acted with reckless disregard for the truth. -entertained serious doubts as to whether the statement was truthful.

In evaluating whether someone acted with reckless disregard for the truth, courts look to the person’s state of mind at the time the statement was published, considering factors such as whether the person had time to investigate the story or needed to publish it quickly and whether the source of the information appeared to be reliable and trustworthy.

Again...this is a legal question to be determined.

Now Dominion has actual evidence that the broadcast defamatory claims were not what the defendants privately, actually, thought. This is where the actual malice is evidenced.

 

[Whyayeman]

A plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove that you published the statement with “actual malice,” a higher level of fault.

What is actual malice, under the law:
The actual malice standard means that the plaintiff must prove that you either (1) knew the defamatory statement was false; or (2) acted with reckless disregard for the truth. -entertained serious doubts as to whether the statement was truthful.

The private emails are strong - indisputable proof of Actual Malice.

In evaluating whether someone acted with reckless disregard for the truth, courts look to the person’s state of mind at the time the statement was published, considering factors such as whether the person had time to investigate the story or needed to publish it quickly and whether the source of the information appeared to be reliable and trustworthy.

Again...this is a legal question to be determined.

This ignores Fox's history of repetition of the defamation over a long period.

Fox is grasping at straws here.

 

[Yttrium]

A plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove that you published the statement with “actual malice,” a higher level of fault.

What is actual malice, under the law:
The actual malice standard means that the plaintiff must prove that you either (1) knew the defamatory statement was false; or (2) acted with reckless disregard for the truth. -entertained serious doubts as to whether the statement was truthful.

Yeah. It's looking pretty bad for Fox.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/16/1157558299/fox-news-stars-false-claims-trump-election-2020

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The private emails are strong - indisputable proof of Actual Malice.

This ignores Fox's history of repetition of the defamation over a long period.

Fox is grasping at straws here.

Actually, whether emails are proof depends on context, conditional phrases...all of it. We need to read them all in context to know that for sure. I have not seen this information, but only snippets cut out by partial sources. If there is a transcript in the court documents, please link it.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Why not? Night after night Fox proclaimed that Dominion defrauded Republicans, that the machines were completely unreliable, to the point where Dominion lost a lot of business. How is that not defamation?


Now Dominion has actual evidence that the broadcast defamatory claims were not what the defendants privately, actually, thought. This is where the actual malice is evidenced.

"Fox" did not proclaim this. Various opinion hosts did. Same as the stuff spewn 24/7 by the left wing over on CNN and MSNBC, Morning Joe, and other outlets by their opinion hosts, many entirely false.

Opinion hosts are permitted to offer their opinions on newsworthy events. Either all of them, or none of them.

 

[DaisyDay]

"Fox" did not proclaim this. Various opinion hosts did. Same as the stuff spewn 24/7 by the left wing over on CNN and MSNBC, Morning Joe, and other outlets by their opinion hosts, many entirely false.

Opinion hosts are permitted to offer their opinions on newsworthy events. Either all of them, or none of them.

We now know that it was not their actual opinion that they were spewing; we have their own words that they thought the Big Lie was nonsense. They were toeing the Fox corporate line. They lied continuously and defamed Dominion Voter Systems.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

We now know that it was not their actual opinion that they were spewing; we have their own words that they thought the Big Lie was nonsense. They were toeing the Fox corporate line. They lied continuously and defamed Dominion Voter Systems.

What you have are snippets of texts out of context in an exhibit. You do not have entire conversations. That said, opinion is permitted. Defamation has a high bar and is not permitted. That's the legal question here.

 

[DaisyDay]

What you have are snippets of texts out of context in an exhibit. You do not have entire conversations. That said, opinion is permitted. Defamation has a high bar and is not permitted. That's the legal question here.

Opinion is allowed but knowingly telling defamatory lies is not. Those snippets are damning. Fox and the hosts are very likely to lose if they don't settle, imo. Settling would probably include retractions, apologies and a ton of money.

 

[I's2C]

Lawsuits by Dominion will never make it to court. They only sued to stop the negative reports with the hopes these news organization pay out of court to save money. If Dominion actually allows any of these to court, all the truth would come out in discovery. WILL NEVER MAKE TO COURT!!! They stand to loose a fortune and their future is over. Funny the Dems were squealing about these machines just 6/7 years ago about being corrupt, but now that they won last 2 elections for them they clam up.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Opinion is allowed but knowingly telling defamatory lies is not. Those snippets are damning. Fox and the hosts are very likely to lose if they don't settle, imo. Settling would probably include retractions, apologies and a ton of money.

Not without context, they are not "damning". Some people like to get the facts first before rushing to judgment and condemnation. I'm among those people who get facts.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not without context, they are not "damning".

Within the context they are damning.

Some people like to get the facts first before rushing to judgment and condemnation. I'm among those people who get facts.

What facts are you looking to get that you don't yet have?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Fox News Tries to Silence a Tucker Carlson Producer Threatening to Reveal Internal Convos​

Grossberg and Fox News are now suing each other, with the top producer alleging Fox News lawyers coached her to take the fall in the Dominion case.

In a Monday complaint filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Fox News alleged that Abby Grossberg, a senior producer and head of booking for Tucker Carlson, has threatened to publicly disclose privileged conversations she had with Fox News lawyers in advance of her own September 2022 deposition in the Dominion defamation case.

Later on Monday evening, the New York Times reported the details of Grossberg’s two lawsuits against Fox News, filed in Delaware and New York. Among the many claims laid out in both documents, Grossberg claimed that prior to her deposition in the ongoing Dominion lawsuit, she was “coached by and intimidated by” Fox lawyers to give testimony she now regrets—an effort, she said, to get her and her former boss Maria Bartiromo to take the blame.

According to Grossberg’s lawsuit, Fox brass openly dismissed Bartiromo as a “crazy [lady-dog]” who was “menopausal.” Additionally, upon joining Carlson’s show last year, Grossberg wrote, she encountered a misogynystic bro culture, with frequent jokes about Jews and lewd remarks about female public figures including Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

 

[USincognito]

Lawsuits by Dominion will never make it to court.

You might be right, but only because Dominion will be awarded summary judgement.

Funny the Dems were squealing about these machines just 6/7 years ago about being corrupt, but now that they won last 2 elections for them they clam up.

I don't remember any Dems "squealing" about Dominion machines at any time. Do you have a citation for that claim?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Fox goes back to the well.

Is Sean Hannity a journalist? Role of hosts is key in Fox News lawsuit.​

The issue could cut both ways for Fox, which argues that hosts who aired false claims of election fraud acted as pundits with the leeway to express opinions — but also seeks to protect their private communications with ‘sources.’​

Murdoch’s comments, taken together with the sworn testimony of key Fox News lieutenants and hosts recently made public, paint a muddled picture of what exactly Fox’s most popular hosts do. Are they pure pundits or opinionated journalists? In other words, are viewers expected to believe them?

That distinction could be a factor in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, which is expected to go to trial in Delaware next month — and it’s an issue that could cut both ways for Fox.

Fox argued in a recent filing that commentators who aired false claims that Dominion rigged voting machines to help Joe Biden were not acting irresponsibly because they were presenting their opinions on newsworthy allegations, as opposed to reporting on them. “To the extent Dominion suggests that a reasonable viewer would expect only sober factual reporting on all of Fox News’ shows simply because Fox News is a ‘news organizatio[n],’ that is wrong,” the network’s lawyers wrote.

I certainly expect inebriated fantasies from Fox, so maybe they have a point.

The interesting thing is that Fox is trying to turn them into Schrödinger's journalists:

Yet Fox lawyers have also described its opinion hosts in language that evokes terminology typically used to defend journalists, saying that they “covered the president’s allegations about Dominion because the president’s efforts to overturn the election results were newsworthy.” And they have claimed that the hosts are entitled to the same rights as journalists to protect their confidential sources — the reason that dozens of Dominion’s exhibits are currently peppered with redactions.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

You might be right, but only because Dominion will be awarded summary judgement.

I don't remember any Dems "squealing" about Dominion machines at any time. Do you have a citation for that claim?

Dominion will never be awarded summary judgment. Requests dismissed today, actually. Judge to determine whether Dominion defamation case against Fox News goes to trial