|
bobjr posted:https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1648318064428191744?s=46&t=CBKJcBX0BD3U5HgUdsqBtw Honest question here, where does that leave Fox as far as a defense goes?
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
LionYeti posted:Honest question here, where does that leave Fox as far as a defense goes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
This sounds almost like the Alex Jones Sandy hook case at this point, just not with an explicit default judgement I guess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
Dominion has to prove actual malice. Which can be stupidly hard at times. So all arguments at trial will likely be about that
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
Also not a lawyer but feels like "I have secret evidence they committed a crime, I hope they sue me for saying this" is malice. In what universe could it not be. You're hoping to hurt them bad enough to sue you. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Apr 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Twibbit posted:Dominion has to prove actual malice. Which can be stupidly hard at times. So all arguments at trial will likely be about that Which, yeah, hard. Certainly helps when you have half a metric asston of emails and texts saying "Yes I did the thing."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
IANAL but as far as I can tell "actual malice" doesn't mean having Tucker on record as saying "I'm going to deliberately lie to our viewers in order to hurt Dominion", but rather that they knew or suspected it was bullshit and said it anyway. Which is normally very difficult... unless you have tons of discovery showing just that.quote:When a public figure like Trump [lol!] sues for defamation, they must prove that the defendant made a false statement with actual malice — that is, they must show that the statement was false and that the defendant either knew it was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was false. "Reckless disregard" means something like deliberately ignoring manifest signs that the statement was false. That's been the standard since New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964. Note that even under this standard, a media outlet that wrote a "purposely . . . false" statement of fact can be held liable. It's a difficult standard, but it can be done, as Rolling Stone found out this month.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1648357195895939075 Its already illegal to be poor and homeless, just taking it a step further.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
OgNar posted:https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1648357195895939075 Somehow I don't think this is a public housing proposal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:Somehow I don't think this is a public housing proposal. Well you see they keep trying to escape these "tent cities" we are trying to, let's say, concentrate them in so we're just going to have to fence the areas in. And if you have fences for people in that kind of situation you're going to have to have guards, ya know? Just how it goes. Boy there's a lot of them too. We better get some kind of transportation system set up. That many people by plane is just too expensive. Hey I hear railcars are pretty economical for this kind of situation, not sure where I heard it from but I heard it from some very fine people. They don't smell very good either we should set up some showers for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
I’m wondering how a person is supposed to “refuse to comply” with not being homeless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Mechanical Ape posted:I’m wondering how a person is supposed to “refuse to comply” with not being homeless. People refuse shelter all the time, usually for one of two reasons. Either A) the local shelter situation is real bad (this is depressingly common) and they'd rather take their chances on the street, or B) they are suffering from profound mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
OgNar posted:https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1648357195895939075 It's fascinating because ideally we would be providing places for homeless folks to receive care and a place to stay. On its face, it almost sounds reasonable. It's just that we all know exactly what this fucker actually means, because there is no way in hell that he or his ilk will spend one red cent on actually helping anyone. And there's no reason to move them out of cities, further isolating them from any connections that they have who could help them out. Or basically: bird food bathtub posted:Well you see they keep trying to escape these "tent cities" we are trying to, let's say, concentrate them in so we're just going to have to fence the areas in. And if you have fences for people in that kind of situation you're going to have to have guards, ya know? Just how it goes. Boy there's a lot of them too. We better get some kind of transportation system set up. That many people by plane is just too expensive. Hey I hear railcars are pretty economical for this kind of situation, not sure where I heard it from but I heard it from some very fine people. They don't smell very good either we should set up some showers for them. And you know full well that some fucker will be charging the government $300/inmate/day and forcing them into slave labor because they're technically criminals and thus can be enslaved. And sure, we could use that money to help benefit the people who need it, but that doesn't line the white pockets of the donor class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Fighting Trousers posted:People refuse shelter all the time, usually for one of two reasons. Either A) the local shelter situation is real bad (this is depressingly common) and they'd rather take their chances on the street, or B) they are suffering from profound mental illness. That makes sense, thanks for explaining.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Fighting Trousers posted:People refuse shelter all the time, usually for one of two reasons. Either A) the local shelter situation is real bad (this is depressingly common) and they'd rather take their chances on the street, or B) they are suffering from profound mental illness. it's important to note that A is often because shelters, often run by religious orgs, can have draconian requirements for being allowed to stay. Also homeless people do have things and can't always just leave them behind even to get into a shelter. pets too, and there's very limited options for couples and families.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Sounds like Fox and Dominion reached a settlement (which booooooo) https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1648416512204750848?s=20 https://twitter.com/AP/status/1648417414218907652?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:07
|
|
|
Cpt. Mahatma Gandhi posted:Sounds like Fox and Dominion reached a settlement (which booooooo) Fuckin' weaaaaak
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Fuckin' weaaaaak Coming up next on Dominion News Network...
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:it's important to note that A is often because shelters, often run by religious orgs, can have draconian requirements for being allowed to stay. Also homeless people do have things and can't always just leave them behind even to get into a shelter. pets too, and there's very limited options for couples and families. Yep. High barrier shelters are a huge problem. There's also simple issues of safety. Nobody wants to stay at a shelter where they may get robbed or assaulted. Cpt. Mahatma Gandhi posted:Sounds like Fox and Dominion reached a settlement (which booooooo) Triskelli posted:Fuckin' weaaaaak
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
Let's check in with one of our favorite right wing media dipshits: https://twitter.com/bakedalaska/status/1648366934478532612 LOL. LMAO. Also: Triskelli posted:Fuckin' weaaaaak
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Fuckin' weaaaaak Yeah the ISIS Hostage on air apologies will be amusing but I wanted more humiliation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Well that's a bummer but it seems like this happened after the judge appointed a special counsel to dig into Fox's discovery process so maybe Murdoch started really making GBS threads bricks at that point. The settlement could involve Tucker having to confess to being a dirty liar every day on his show, for all we know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Well that's a bummer but it seems like this happened after the judge appointed a special counsel to dig into Fox's discovery process so maybe Murdoch started really making GBS threads bricks at that point. The settlement could involve Tucker having to confess to being a dirty liar every day on his show, for all we know. There's no way anything from this settlement will be anywhere appropriate to the damage Fox News has caused short of their complete and utter dismantling and dissolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:There's no way anything from this settlement will be anywhere appropriate to the damage Fox News has caused short of their complete and utter dismantling and dissolution. Yep, this is a massive disappointment. It's not even in the same solar system as appropriate justice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Let's check in with one of our favorite right wing media dipshits: Uncropped version: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
I just want to know if there are going to be any other conditions for this settlement beyond the $787 million Because if I'm Dominion I want Fox News to be required to air messages saying that they lied about Dominion's involvement in a 'voter fraud' conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
Yeah, I see no upside to this without more info. As it is they can just continue on lying without repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
Yeah it's a big win for Fox, I don't know how I could view it any other way and I didn't even believe a huge loss for them would meaningfully impact their operations because it's an attack on one of the peripheral aspects of it. If it becomes unprofitable commercially it will merely be supported by other means.Dirk the Average posted:And you know full well that some fucker will be charging the government $300/inmate/day and forcing them into slave labor because they're technically criminals and thus can be enslaved. And sure, we could use that money to help benefit the people who need it, but that doesn't line the white pockets of the donor class. Standard rate is actually $750/day for people caught crossing the border, but that's pre-COVID I believe so it's probably higher now. Something to always keep in mind when seeing the conditions of these places.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
Yeah huge win for Fox but the private equity fucks who own Dominion get paid immediately and about 10x what they invested into.
LionYeti fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
And nothing will happen to curtail "news" that leads to a bunch of morons trying to overthrow the government or people being so terrified of exceedingly rare violent crime that they shoot children walking or driving up to the wrong house. The reason we live in such a society? Fox news and their ilk, the gun manufacturers, and the NRA, who all need 40% of the country to think it's a Charles Bronson movie out there to stay in business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:And nothing will happen to curtail "news" that leads to a bunch of morons trying to overthrow the government or people being so terrified of exceedingly rare violent crime that they shoot children walking or driving up to the wrong house. The reason we live in such a society? Fox news and their ilk, the gun manufacturers, and the NRA, who all need 40% of the country to think it's a Charles Bronson movie out there to stay in business. The question is can you fight them without First Amendment issues being raised? Private entities can go after them for slander/libel but the government itself is extremely constrained unless they can prove actual criminal malice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Jagged Jim posted:Uncropped version: His dong is the clapper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
If it was a huge win for Fox they wouldn't have settled
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:If it was a huge win for Fox they wouldn't have settled Its a huge win because they arent being held accountable for their lies. Allowing them to continue on like nothing happened like this video from yesterday that is just plain hate/fear mongering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRG9u-XrTAU
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
Talk radio is just going to spin it Dominion took the settlement because they knew they had no case and this just proves it. I don't even know if FOX will report on it. I never even thought to see how (or if) they were covering it. I'd assume they can't because of the lawsuit but now...?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
Looks like the Dominion attorney is claiming that since they paid a lot of money and backed down or something, that makes it a win. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIsOCwjWchc
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:If it was a huge win for Fox they wouldn't have settled Well, it depends on what the terms of the deal are, but I imagine Fox may have paid something different than the alleged damages in order to get more favorable terms where they do not have to make on-air statements. Counsel for Fox hosed this case top to bottom by insisting Murdoch wasn't an officer when he was. Discovery into that would have led to even further liability for Fox. So in a position where they're likely to loving lose this case in front of a jury while also opening up further liability, I imagine settling for nearly any price was the winning move. So it's a win for Fox in the sense that this outcome is likely better than the alternative where the trial goes forward. Fox also most likely gets to save some face by not having as much of their poo poo dragged out in public. Fox being able to pay some money to make poo poo go away is a win for them. That's what they wanted in the first place, but balked at the price Dominion was quoting. Absent their own malfeasance they probably could have let the trial go forward and had damages knocked down significantly on appeal. I imagine this will lead to drastically different policies about internal communication at the company and also them hiring new lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
Is 500 million a lot of money to fox? I’m guessing not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
There is also the Smartmatic lawsuit, but dont know when that comes to fruition. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-04-18/fox-news-dominion-settlement-fallout-rupert-murdochs-empire "Beyond the $787.5-million payout to end the Dominion case, Fox now must contend with a second defamation suit filed by a rival voting machine company, Smartmatic USA, which has demanded $2.7 billion. And Fox investors also are lining up with their own lawsuits, alleging that Rupert Murdoch and other board members were derelict in their duties by allowing Fox News to promote election lies, which harmed the network’s reputation as a news organization."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Is 500 million a lot of money to fox? I’m guessing not. I believe their profit last year was $1.5 billion, so $787.5 million was about half that. Not a small number, but is it really a deterrent? I guess it depends on how the other lawsuits shake out, but by itself, I'm going to say no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 02:33
|
|