The dominion Voting suit against Fox should fail

[The5thHorseman]

Don’t presume to tell me what to do. I have a better handle on normal Americans than a scumbag like you could ever have.

Then represent your fellow morons..

I don't give a shit

 

[BackAgain]

Please fucking stop.

It's over.

You humiliated yourself, again.

You keep projecting.

It’s ok; you have to be used to failing all the time, by now.

 

[HaShev]

If Fox had good lawyers they would have overturned this and made it null and void since it was a clear case of extortion now that we know it was being weaponized to remove certain reporters. This falls into the racketeering laws and there's a pattern with the owners wife & her firm doing this sort of thing and her involvement with this pursuit per background according to info in search engines about cases they do.

 

[SavannahMann]

If Fox had good lawyers they would have overturned this and made it null and void since it was a clear case of extortion now that we know it was being weaponized to remove certain reporters. This falls into the racketeering laws and there's a pattern with the owners wife & her firm doing this sort of thing and her involvement with this pursuit per background according to info in search engines about cases they do.

The problem was the Sullivan standard. To hold a news organization liable the suit has to clear a high bar for any hope of success. This goes back to the Sullivan vs. NY Times case. It is called Absence of Malice.

What it means is this. If you are a reporter and say you have information that I copulate with Ducks. That is potentially libel. If you have a source that provided the information, you might be protected. If you have access to information that your source is lying, you aren’t.

Internal communications from Fox showed they knew the claims made about Dominion were false. They knew the truth. But they continued to report it. That makes the statement’s libelous.

Worse. Fox fired people for insisting on telling the truth. That makes the actions conspiratorial.

One lawsuit settled. Fox paid an incredible amount of money. If their lawyers thought they had a chance they would have fought it.

But because they settled no appeal is possible.

Fox screwed up. They saw it as a question of ratings and advertising money. When their lawyers started to get involved they asked a question. We are putting out the claims of Dominion that this isn’t true aren’t we? No they weren’t.

 

[The5thHorseman]

That's not a refutation, that's an admission that it's all about the money and power.
View attachment 794129

I have no obligation to refute assertions.

 

[HaShev]

The problem was the Sullivan standard. To hold a news organization liable the suit has to clear a high bar for any hope of success. This goes back to the Sullivan vs. NY Times case. It is called Absence of Malice.

What it means is this. If you are a reporter and say you have information that I copulate with Ducks. That is potentially libel. If you have a source that provided the information, you might be protected. If you have access to information that your source is lying, you aren’t.

Internal communications from Fox showed they knew the claims made about Dominion were false. They knew the truth. But they continued to report it. That makes the statement’s libelous.

Worse. Fox fired people for insisting on telling the truth. That makes the actions conspiratorial.

One lawsuit settled. Fox paid an incredible amount of money. If their lawyers thought they had a chance they would have fought it.

But because they settled no appeal is possible.

Fox screwed up. They saw it as a question of ratings and advertising money. When their lawyers started to get involved they asked a question. We are putting out the claims of Dominion that this isn’t true aren’t we? No they weren’t.

In a civil case unlike criminal case it's harder to prove, therefore it doesn't mean Fox is caught in any narrative, it means they didn't feel it could be proven to satisfaction (that usually plaintiffs win because of it), and therefore was extorted and threatened to settle or face many other suits by many other extortionist opportunists (Like the NY civil case against Trump, she never filed criminal charges only civil). Whether you think one side or the other had a case the act of extortion is there and falls into racketeering laws. Remember the threats to shut down Fox and censor free speech is and was real (as was the threats to shut down Trump was the weaponization of the NY civil case) The acts to do this at other outlets was and is real, there is a motive and trend taking place setting a precedence.

 

[The5thHorseman]

In a civil case unlike criminal case it's harder to prove, therefore it doesn't mean Fox is caught in any narrative, it means they didn't feel it could be proven to satisfaction (that usually plaintiffs win because of it), and therefore was extorted and threatened to settle or face many other suits by many other extortionist opportunists. Whether you think one side or the other had a case the act of extortion is there and falls into racketeering laws. Remember the threats to shut down Fox snd censor free speech is and was real. The acts to do this at other outkets was and is real, there is a notive and trend taking place setting a precedence.

This is utter garbage...

 

[HaShev]

I have no obligation to refute assertions.

In that same standard nobody has an expectation to take your comments serious when it's called trolling.

 

[The5thHorseman]

In that same standard nobody has an expectation to take your comments serious when it's called trolling.
View attachment 794257

Let me show you how a man does it, bitch..

Given This Week's Developments, It's Time To Admit That APSA Nailed It...

 

[Skylar]

This didn't age so well..now did it?

LOL!

C'mon. Its BackAgain. That guy wouldn't know Actual Malice if it bit him in the ass. His arguments boil down to 'uh-uh'.

And as the largest defamation settlement in history demonstrates elegantly....'uh-uh' isn't nearly good enough.

 

[SavannahMann]

In a civil case unlike criminal case it's harder to prove, therefore it doesn't mean Fox is caught in any narrative, it means they didn't feel it could be proven to satisfaction (that usually plaintiffs win because of it), and therefore was extorted and threatened to settle or face many other suits by many other extortionist opportunists (Like the NY civil case against Trump, she never filed criminal charges only civil). Whether you think one side or the other had a case the act of extortion is there and falls into racketeering laws. Remember the threats to shut down Fox and censor free speech is and was real (as was the threats to shut down Trump was the weaponization of the NY civil case) The acts to do this at other outlets was and is real, there is a motive and trend taking place setting a precedence.

If you followed the news, then you know that Fox was well aware that they had been caught lying on the air. The very definition of Libel.

As for the nonsense CT about them, whoever they are, being out to get Fox. One factor in that would be Fox doing the job right. Again using the scenario where it is reported that I copulate with ducks. In that Scenario for Fox to be telling the truth there would be pictures and video. Statements of witnesses. Something.

We know what the truth is now. Dominions final filing before the trial started included the evidence supporting their claims. Dominion included text messages, emails, and sworn statements about how they knew that the Dominion assertions were false.

There is certainly more than enough room for the two sides to the story principle that Fox used to use. However that requires the use of the evidence or facts, just a different interpretation.

Now, I’ll give Fox some credit. Unlike Alex Jones they didn’t try and withhold the damaging information. They did provide it in compliance with the Subpoena. That was honorable.

It is often called peer pressure. At least when it is done in or amongst a small group. In Capitalism it is called giving the customer what they want. There has to be a point you don’t cross however. If giving the customer what they want today, sets you up for ruin next week, you are better advised to reconsider it.

 

[HaShev]

If you followed the news, then you know that Fox was well aware that they had been caught lying on the air. The very definition of Libel.

As for the nonsense CT about them, whoever they are, being out to get Fox. One factor in that would be Fox doing the job right. Again using the scenario where it is reported that I copulate with ducks. In that Scenario for Fox to be telling the truth there would be pictures and video. Statements of witnesses. Something.

We know what the truth is now. Dominions final filing before the trial started included the evidence supporting their claims. Dominion included text messages, emails, and sworn statements about how they knew that the Dominion assertions were false.

There is certainly more than enough room for the two sides to the story principle that Fox used to use. However that requires the use of the evidence or facts, just a different interpretation.

Now, I’ll give Fox some credit. Unlike Alex Jones they didn’t try and withhold the damaging information. They did provide it in compliance with the Subpoena. That was honorable.

It is often called peer pressure. At least when it is done in or amongst a small group. In Capitalism it is called giving the customer what they want. There has to be a point you don’t cross however. If giving the customer what they want today, sets you up for ruin next week, you are better advised to reconsider it.

1-I caught Dominion lying also, using word symantics
2-all the broadcasts I saw were carefully worded, of course I could not see them all. It seems to me since Dominion could not sue the * internet missinfo (* due to pass the story down the line), they chose to extort the money from cash bags Fox.
This is something the owner's wife and firm dhe works for does for a living as does thr firm who represented Dominion, squeeze companies in such law suits (according to the history of their cases recorded online in searches research.)
3-they never proved the glitch as just a glitch and to why that glitch as all others always benefit their political party.
4-they never proved they didn't have employees that took it upon themselves or are working from the inside, nor prove nobody was compromised, have you not seen Oceans Eleven *L*
Not eluding to anything either way, but if you can't debate it then it flourishes untettered with censorship of speech. Now a paranoid Fox can't do it's job to challenge thought and be aware, and they are almost the only ones left not part of the Gov't propaganda machine that mirrors China,
N. Korea, and Russia control of media.

 

[SavannahMann]

1-I caught Dominion lying also, using word symantics
2-all the broadcasts I saw were carefully worded, of course I could not see them all. It seems to me since Dominion could not sue the * internet missinfo (* due to pass the story down the line), they chose to extort the money from cash bags Fox.
This is something the owner's wife and firm dhe works for does for a living as does thr firm who represented Dominion, squeeze companies in such law suits (according to the history of their cases recorded online in searches research.)
3-they never proved the glitch as just a glitch and to why that glitch as all others always benefit their political party.
4-they never proved they didn't have employees that took it upon themselves or are working from the inside, nor prove nobody was compromised, have you not seen Oceans Eleven *L*
Not eluding to anything either way, but if you can't debate it then it flourishes untettered with censorship of speech. Now a paranoid Fox can't do it's job to challenge thought and be aware, and they are almost the only ones left not part of the Gov't propaganda machine that mirrors China,
N. Korea, and Russia control of media.

Oh Lord. One of those. Give me strength.

It wasn’t word semantics that got Fox in trouble. It was clearly stated in the messages. They knew they were not telling the truth.

But let’s deal with your insane ideal where anyone has to prove to your satisfaction that they didn’t do something. Your inside man theory. It doesn’t work that way.

Let’s say you work at a bank. It is not incumbent upon you to prove to me, that you didn’t steal every single day from the bank. It doesn’t work like that. I have to prove you did steal from the bank. I can create a number of scenarios in which you could have stolen from the bank, but that isn’t enough. I have to have some evidence. Like, missing money.

The RW types have demanded that the entire world get turned upside down, except where they are defending I suppose. With charges against Trump, you have to prove it to a Jury of his peers, hand picked by him, before the first moment of the investigation.

You’ve decided that the right way is to prove innocence. So here. I charge you with being an Iranian agent. Prove you aren’t. Sounds stupid doesn’t it? It is stupid. But that is the insane demands made by the Right since 2020.

Fox knew they were lying. They did it anyway. For the ratings and the viewers. They put ratings before truth, and they suffered.

They could have covered their bases, but that would have upset the viewers too. And their viewership is way down since they stopped this nonsense. People on your side of the aisle demand wild Conspiracy Theories, and demand that it be fed to them on a daily basis.

 

[bodecea]

People are getting spun here. The left wing media of course laps up the bleatings of the legal team for plaintiff Dominion. And the regular liberal MSM has a bug up it’s collective ass about Fox News.

So they make comments (reported as alleged “news”) about how a media outlet could get reamed even with the higher burden imposed on plaintiffs suing news outlets for defamation. This is why we get lots of reports about Hannity denying that he believed the Trump claim and Murdoch basically saying the same thing.

The liberal MSM is content to insinuate from that sketchy information that defendant Fox News was guilty of actual malice. But that’s horseshit.

New outlets report NEWS. The Fox News legal defense team makes a much more salient argument: “Fox News maintains that its reporting and commentary was protected by the 1st Amendment because allegations presented by a sitting president are newsworthy even if false.”

Source of above quote: How strong is Dominion's defamation case against Fox News? Legal experts weigh in

That tidbit is (surprisingly) found within a report from a left wing MSM news outlet. But it is kind of buried and not forever being trumpeted like the snarky predictions of pending doom for Fox News.

Anyway, some food for thought. I’ll go even further however. A commentator (like Hannity) doesn’t report “news.” He offers opinions. So his revelation is (imho) irrelevant to Dominion’s “case.”

I won’t predict how the case turns out. But I doubt they will end up at trial and if it does go to trial I’d expect Dominion to lose. We may never know the settlement number of it does settle. But I’m confident it won’t gut Fox News.

 

[HaShev]

Oh Lord. One of those. Give me strength.

It wasn’t word semantics that got Fox in trouble. It was clearly stated in the messages. They knew they were not telling the truth.

But let’s deal with your insane ideal where anyone has to prove to your satisfaction that they didn’t do something. Your inside man theory. It doesn’t work that way.

Let’s say you work at a bank. It is not incumbent upon you to prove to me, that you didn’t steal every single day from the bank. It doesn’t work like that. I have to prove you did steal from the bank. I can create a number of scenarios in which you could have stolen from the bank, but that isn’t enough. I have to have some evidence. Like, missing money.

The RW types have demanded that the entire world get turned upside down, except where they are defending I suppose. With charges against Trump, you have to prove it to a Jury of his peers, hand picked by him, before the first moment of the investigation.

You’ve decided that the right way is to prove innocence. So here. I charge you with being an Iranian agent. Prove you aren’t. Sounds stupid doesn’t it? It is stupid. But that is the insane demands made by the Right since 2020.

Fox knew they were lying. They did it anyway. For the ratings and the viewers. They put ratings before truth, and they suffered.

They could have covered their bases, but that would have upset the viewers too. And their viewership is way down since they stopped this nonsense. People on your side of the aisle demand wild Conspiracy Theories, and demand that it be fed to them on a daily basis.

Tell me which Dominion statement that was false I am referring to otherwise you just got caught lying about something you have no clue about.

 

[Meister]

Thread closed, this topic has lost its way.