The dominion Voting suit against Fox should fail

[BackAgain]

You're not teaching anyone anything by ignoring the Supreme Court save that you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, and that you citing yourself as a legal source is meaningless gibberish.

Your concession is accepted with grace and patience.

You don’t take rejection very well.

The lawsuit is settled. The topic has become stale. The consequences of the settlement and of the behaviors of Fox News air commentators and reporters will proceed.

By the way:
“A private-figure plaintiff must prove at least negligence to recover any damages
and, when the speech involves a matter of public concern, he must also prove
New York Times malice . . . to recover presumed or punitive damages.” (Brown
v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 747 [257 Cal.Rptr. 708, 771
P.2d 406]).”

— CACI No. 1704. Defamation per se - Essential Factual Elements (Private Figure - Matter of Private Concern)

Note that “malice” is an element for a public figure. But it can apply in other cases, too.

 

[struth]

In the dictionary, maybe. Actual Malice is a legal term describing possible conditions for defamation.

"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

With the Supreme court offering reckless disregard as one of the two possible standards of Malice.

You're argument is to literally ignore the supreme court on Malice in defamation cases and insist your know better.

That's adorable.




The SCOTUS definition of malice applies to all individuals. And has for decades. This isn't a new arrangment. This is is the standard use of malice in defamation cases since the 1960s.

Whereas your version of malice where reckless disregard is a separate standard is completely imaginary. You made it up.

And your imagination isn't a legal standard. The legal definitions from Supreme Court rulings most definitely are.

In this case it's moot at this point...clearly Dominion was concerned they couldn't prove the legal standard and settled out of court.

It's over.

 

[Skylar]

In this case it's moot at this point...clearly Dominion was concerned they couldn't prove the legal standard and settled out of court.

It's over.

Laughing.....are you still trying to spin the largest public defamation settlement in human history as a WIN for Fox News?

Good luck.

 

[Skylar]

You don’t take rejection very well.

The lawsuit is settled. The topic has become stale. The consequences of the settlement and of the behaviors of Fox News air commentators and reporters will proceed.

By the way:
“A private-figure plaintiff must prove at least negligence to recover any damages
and, when the speech involves a matter of public concern, he must also prove
New York Times malice . . . to recover presumed or punitive damages.” (Brown
v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 747 [257 Cal.Rptr. 708, 771
P.2d 406]).”

— CACI No. 1704. Defamation per se - Essential Factual Elements (Private Figure - Matter of Private Concern)

Note that “malice” is an element for a public figure. But it can apply in other cases, too.

This suit wasn't in California. But Delware, flavored with NY.

Here's the Delaware standard:

"The defendant published or verbally broadcast the false communication of fact. The communication under protest is about the plaintiff. The statement in question caused material or reputational harm to the plaintiff. The defendant acted either negligently or with actual malice."

(Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8119)

With the Supreme Court having long since defined the meaning of Actual Malice in the 1960s.

"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."


Let me repeat for the cheap seats:

You don't. Know what. The fuck. You're talking about.

 

[BackAgain]

This suit wasn't in California. But Delware, flavored with NY.

Here's the Delaware standard:

"The defendant published or verbally broadcast the false communication of fact. The communication under protest is about the plaintiff. The statement in question caused material or reputational harm to the plaintiff. The defendant acted either negligently or with actual malice."

(Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8119)

With the Supreme Court having long since defined the meaning of Actual Malice in the 1960s.

"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."


Let me repeat for the cheap seats:

You don't. Know what. The fuck. You're talking about.

Again, unlike you, I actually do know what I’m speaking about. You? Not so much except what you piece together poorly at that.

And again, the suit is settled now so the ongoing discussion is pointless.

But I’m Delaware courts have discussed the actual elements required to state a claim in a civil complaint for defamation:

Cousins v. Goodier, et. al. (Sup. Ct, Del., 2021) citing Doe, 884 A. 2d at 459 at 463. Document Not Found - Delaware Courts - State of Delaware

Normally, as seen above, the “element” of “malice” isn’t there.

In the Dominion case against Fox, I believe there might have been an included element of malice based on the public nature of the issue. I’m ok with that.

As for the outcome of the case, I am indifferent.

 

[Skylar]

Again, unlike you, I actually do know what I’m speaking about. You? Not so much except what you piece together poorly at that.

And again, the suit is settled now so the ongoing discussion is pointless.

But I’m Delaware courts have discussed the actual elements required to state a claim in a civil complaint for defamation:

View attachment 779617
Cousins v. Goodier, et. al. (Sup. Ct, Del., 2021) citing Doe, 884 A. 2d at 459 at 463. Document Not Found - Delaware Courts - State of Delaware

Normally, as seen above, the “element” of “malice” isn’t there.

In the Dominion case against Fox, I believe there might have been an included element of malice based on the public nature of the issue. I’m ok with that.

As for the outcome of the case, I am indifferent.

For the Dominion Case, Actual Malice was cited no less 24 times as a standard that Fox was being held to.

Clearly you didn't read nearly enough.

 

[bodecea]

This suit wasn't in California. But Delware, flavored with NY.

Here's the Delaware standard:

"The defendant published or verbally broadcast the false communication of fact. The communication under protest is about the plaintiff. The statement in question caused material or reputational harm to the plaintiff. The defendant acted either negligently or with actual malice."

(Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8119)

With the Supreme Court having long since defined the meaning of Actual Malice in the 1960s.

"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."


Let me repeat for the cheap seats:

You don't. Know what. The fuck. You're talking about.

As always.

 

[BackAgain]

For the Dominion Case, Actual Malice was cited no less 24 times as a standard that Fox was being held to.

Clearly you didn't read nearly enough.

I still don’t care. To the extent malice was an element in that case (as opposed to the normal elements in other cases), it was solely due to the public interest in the validity or invalidity of the underlying claim.

And it doesn’t matter, now. In case you’re unaware of it, the case was settled.

And in this case, the defendant did not admit that it lied or that it had demonstrated any reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of its claim.

 

[Skylar]

I still don’t care. To the extent malice was an element in that case (as opposed to the normal elements in other cases), it was solely due to the public interest in the validity or invalidity of the underlying claim.

You caring is utterly irrelevant to the standards of the case.

Actual Malice was the standard that Fox was held to. And Actual Malice includes reckless disregard as a standard that meets it.

The defendant 'admitting' on falsity is irrelevant. The court granted summary judgment on falsity in favor of Dominion. The legal determination was made.

And the case for reckless disregard for the the truth (one of the two possible standard of Actual Malice) were strong enough to warrant a $787,500,000 settlement.

The largest public defamation settlement in history.

Your 'legal assessment' that there was no malice was meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. You didn't even understand the standards of Actual Malice until I told you.

 

[BackAgain]

You caring is utterly irrelevant to the standards of the case.

The standards of the case are irrelvant since it was settled.

If I point out (for your benefit) some other dead horse, maybe you can go beat that carcass just for a change of view.

 

[struth]

Laughing.....are you still trying to spin the largest public defamation settlement in human history as a WIN for Fox News?

Good luck.

when did i say it was a win? i’m not spinning anything…simply stating a fact

 

[Skylar]

The standards of the case are irrelvant since it was settled.

If I point out (for your benefit) some other dead horse, maybe you can go beat that carcass just for a change of view.

The standards of the case were immediately relevant to the meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense that you offered us when you said that there was no malice.

You didn't understand what Actual Malice was. Making your 'assessment' useless. I had to painstaking educate you on the basics of defamation law in this case.

For crying out loud, you didn't even know that Actual Malice was the standard in the case until I told you it had been cited no less than 24 times in court rulings.

You don't know what you're talking about. Please remember that if you ever think of giving us another 'legal analysis'.

 

[Skylar]

when did i say it was a win? i’m not spinning anything…simply stating a fact

Fox got its ass handed to it in the single largest public defamation pay out in human history.

I'm simply stating a fact.

 

[BackAgain]

The standards of the case were immediately relevant to the meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense that you offered us when you said that there was no malice.

You didn't understand what Actual Malice was. Making your 'assessment' useless. I had to painstaking educate you on the basics of defamation law in this case.

For crying out loud, you didn't even know that Actual Malice was the standard in the case until I told you it had been cited no less than 24 times in court rulings.

You don't know what you're talking about. Please remember that if you ever think of giving us another 'legal analysis'.

False. As you know. But please rant away.

 

[struth]

Fox got its ass handed to it in the single largest public defamation pay out in human history.

I'm simply stating a fact.

no they actually came to an agreement…that’s what a settlement is…when two parties in a civil dispute decide to work it out outside of court with both parties coming to an agreement

obviously Dominion didn’t want to risk losing

 

[Toro]

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.

This didn’t age well

 

[BackAgain]

This didn’t age well

It aged just fine. As I said in the thread headline, the suit should have failed.

But, regardless, it got settled, instead.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Says you. The Supreme Court says otherwise.


"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."


That's the definition of Actual Malice used for all individuals accused of defamation. And it has been for decades.

Yet in your ignorance, you claimed that 'reckless disregard' was a separate standard from Malice. When in fact, reckless disregard IS a standard of Malice.

This is why you citing yourself as your own legal expert is always such a colossal waste of everyone's time. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Dominion had Fox dead to rights on falsity. And had a *strong* case for reckless disregard for the truth - one of the two possible bases for claims of Malice.

Oh, SNAP!



You just stripped the bark off Strip Mall.

 

[The5thHorseman]

It aged just fine. As I said in the thread headline, the suit should have failed.

But, regardless, it got settled, instead.

0-fer,

This world was never meant for one as beautiful as you....

 

[BackAgain]

0-fer,

This world was never meant for one as beautiful as you....

Another ^ absolutely useless clump of words from Horseshit.

And wrapping it up with Don Mclean’s lyrics really added that special nothing.