Chillicothe
Platinum Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 11,182
- 7,135
- 938
Tonight's reportage in the Washington Post offers an interesting perspective on the judge's ruling that the lawsuit by Smartamatic can proceed, and that there does appear to be a basis for arguing that Fox New did, indeed, act with malice.....which negates their 1st Amendment defense.
Here's a taster on the reportage: (underlining by my avatar)
"But perhaps the ruling’s most biting — and also potentially legally important — section involves (Tucker) Carlson.
In the course of laying out the legal requirements for Smartmatic to prove its case, the judge noted that the company must prove Fox met the standard of acting with “actual malice” — i.e. not merely promoting false claims, but doing so with malice.
And on that count, the judge says the best evidence that it did is Carlson.
That’s because Carlson, unlike the others, applied significant actual skepticism to the claims — and broadcast it.
It’s an episode many might have forgotten in the long ... run-up to the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. But there was a time in which none other than Carlson stepped forward to question the “stolen election” narrative that had taken hold in the Trump movement and in certain corners of his network. Carlson said on Nov. 19 that Powell’s claims were serious, but he also noted that she had yet to substantiate them. He said he had asked, over the course of a week, for the evidence and offered her his platform, but that she had declined.
(Tucker) Carlson said Powell “never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.” He said that when he invited her on his show, she became “angry and told us to stop contacting her.”
The episode alienated some Trump allies. But it also, in Cohen’s estimation, speaks to the possibility that Fox might meet the “actual malice” standard.
Here’s the section (with key parts bolded by us (WaPo)):
Should be an interesting case to monitor.
I hope it garners enough attention on this venue so that posters and lurkers can stay current on developments.
Here's a taster on the reportage: (underlining by my avatar)
"But perhaps the ruling’s most biting — and also potentially legally important — section involves (Tucker) Carlson.
In the course of laying out the legal requirements for Smartmatic to prove its case, the judge noted that the company must prove Fox met the standard of acting with “actual malice” — i.e. not merely promoting false claims, but doing so with malice.
And on that count, the judge says the best evidence that it did is Carlson.
That’s because Carlson, unlike the others, applied significant actual skepticism to the claims — and broadcast it.
It’s an episode many might have forgotten in the long ... run-up to the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. But there was a time in which none other than Carlson stepped forward to question the “stolen election” narrative that had taken hold in the Trump movement and in certain corners of his network. Carlson said on Nov. 19 that Powell’s claims were serious, but he also noted that she had yet to substantiate them. He said he had asked, over the course of a week, for the evidence and offered her his platform, but that she had declined.
(Tucker) Carlson said Powell “never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another. Not one.” He said that when he invited her on his show, she became “angry and told us to stop contacting her.”
The episode alienated some Trump allies. But it also, in Cohen’s estimation, speaks to the possibility that Fox might meet the “actual malice” standard.
Here’s the section (with key parts bolded by us (WaPo)):
Should be an interesting case to monitor.
I hope it garners enough attention on this venue so that posters and lurkers can stay current on developments.
