The dominion Voting suit against Fox should fail

[Clipper]

He doesn’t need a go fund me for pocket change, you abject imbecile.

That's good. He'll need it when Symentec gets done with him & the major shareholders of Fox who are & are going to sue him for this fiasco., Skippy.

 

[BackAgain]

That's good. He'll need it when Symentec gets done with him & the major shareholders of Fox who are & are going to sue him for this fiasco., Skippy.

Symantec?

 

[Clipper]

Symantec?

Smartmatic, pinhead. You always this anal?

Don't answer, we already know.

 

[BackAgain]

Smartmatic, pinhead. You always this anal?

You’re the douche who called them “Symantec.” You fucking retard.

Don't answer, we already know.

Answer what, you retard? Do you have some question about Symantec?

 

[The5thHorseman]

The next time you post anything of substance will be the first, Horseshit, you hypocrite.

Stuff like this?

 

[Care4all]

yes of course they did, and they were able to show that they were harassed for years because of Jones's defamation.
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

defamation

www.law.cornell.edu

How'd that work out for Fox News?

 

[BackAgain]

Stuff like this?

Another pathetic, feeble, ungainly swing and of course a massive miss by Horseshit.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Another pathetic, feeble, ungainly swing and of course a massive miss by Horseshit.

I feed off your bitterness.

It's a banquet.

 

[struth]

How'd that work out for Fox News?

they weren’t found liable and never admitted fault

 

[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.

 

[BackAgain]

they weren’t found liable and never admitted fault

True.

Try facty things, argument...you know...something other than distilled quimminess.

I leave the latter to you.

And the day you start posting facts and making a coherent argument akin to a syllogism is the day you might at last be taken seriously.

Until then, you remain fully worthless.

 

[Skylar]

Same conclusion. Not only is it the freedom of the press that you are wolfishly enjoying, but it is also freedom of political speech.

Showing “malice” isn’t even implicated in this case. It’s not like attacking the business (like a wife might try to slut-shame her husband’s mistress). It’s reporting the claims that the integrity of the election had been undermined.

Any hypothetical (or actual) damage to the company was merely incidental to the story. It wasn’t the purpose of the story.

You don't understand what malice is. Malice, the standard of defamation includes reckless disregard for the whether the claims are false or not.

You keep trying to offer the 'reckless disregard' standard as somehow separate from malice....when its one of the two literal definitions of malice offered by the Supreme Court.

 

[BackAgain]

You don't understand what malice is. Malice, the standard of defamation includes reckless disregard for the whether the claims are false or not.

You keep trying to offer the 'reckless disregard' standard as somehow separate from malice....when its one of the two literal definitions of malice offered by the Supreme Court.

The non-comprehension is yours. As usual.

 

[Skylar]

The non-comprehension is yours. As usual.

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.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Zzzzz.

 

[Skylar]

Zzzzz.

Laughing....its okay buddy. I knew you were going to ignore the Supreme Court and cling to your pseudo-legal gibberish when I posted.

 

[BackAgain]

Laughing....its okay buddy. I knew you were going to ignore the Supreme Court and cling to your pseudo-legal gibberish when I posted.

It’s ok buddy. Keep trying to refry those beans.

“Malice” means an intention to do evil. You could look it up.

A party who allegedly defames another party by speaking a falsehood either does so with such intent (ie, lying and lying purposefully) OR merely out of ignorance and a reckless disregard for the truth of the matter. The latter is not a lie, by definition.

The SCOTUS definition of malice which you quoted improperly, refers to the cases of “defaming” a public official, not a company.

 

[Skylar]

It’s ok buddy. Keep trying to refry those beans.

“Malice” means an intention to do evil. You could look it up.

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.

A party who allegedly defames another party by speaking a falsehood either does so with such intent (ie, lying and lying purposefully) OR merely out of ignorance and a reckless disregard for the truth of the matter. The latter is not a lie, by definition.

The SCOTUS definition of malice which you quoted improperly, refers to the cases of “defaming” a public official, not a company.

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.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Ok. I won’t try to educate you. And I won’t continue to bother focusing on Fox News. They’re the ones who have to pay. Not the rest of America.

 

[Skylar]

Ok. I won’t try to educate you. And I won’t continue to bother focusing on Fox News. They’re the ones who have to pay. Not the rest of America.

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.