Fox lied as a matter of law

[TexasTiger 13,000]

The judge ruled that the evidence was crystal clear Fox lied as a matter of law— there can be no dispute. 
 

 

So the jury will decide if they did so maliciously.

The legal definition:

malice

n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. Malice is an element in first degree murder. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation.

 

I think Fox is screwed. You?

[TitanTiger 20,509]

17 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

The judge ruled that the evidence was crystal clear Fox lied as a matter of law— there can be no dispute. 
 

 

So the jury will decide if they did so maliciously.

The legal definition:

malice

n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. Malice is an element in first degree murder. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation.

 

I think Fox is screwed. You?

It seems pretty cut and dried.  You can see from all their texts and emails that they knew they were promulgating lies, but they didn't care.  They cared about ratings, about not riling up their customer base, and about keeping Trump off their backs.  It served their agenda to push this stuff and so they did.  And if Dominion had to be thrown under the bus to achieve that, so be it.   Seems like textbook malice.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

It seems pretty cut and dried.  You can see from all their texts and emails that they knew they were promulgating lies, but they didn't care.  They cared about ratings, about not riling up their customer base, and about keeping Trump off their backs.  It served their agenda to push this stuff and so they did.  And if Dominion had to be thrown under the bus to achieve that, so be it.   Seems like textbook malice.

Or preferred riling up their customer base with lies rather than with the truth.

[aubiefifty 16,874]

i do not believe lies should fall under freedom of speech. i hope they make fox and company pay. and not just the company but tucker and lou and all those who lied to fill their pockets with more money due to ratings. it also ratchets up the hate and violence as people want to get out there and protect their vote with protests where many on the right at these protests look for a reason to hurt people. trump started all this mess and the right to include right wing news have all bought in to the hate. and claiming the whole time they are christian.

[I_M4_AU 7,950]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

i do not believe lies should fall under freedom of speech

I guess we should create a *Ministry of Truth* and you can head it up.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I guess we should create a *Ministry of Truth* and you can head it up.

So you believe being able to knowingly tell blatant lies is covered by freedom of speech - meaning one is immune to criminal or civil charges for doing so?

[aubiefifty 16,874]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I guess we should create a *Ministry of Truth* and you can head it up.

you certainly did not care when trump was prez. i wanted too throw that zinger in there to match yours you shot my way. i will admit you finally got off the trump band wagon and saw the light but that does not mean it no longer needs to be discussed.

[aubiefifty 16,874]

i am going to wait on responding to this any further. my blood pressure is running 150 over a 100 so i need to be a little more careful until i get this adjusted. for a 67 year old fatman that is a scary number.this is the fourth day it has been high. trust me i love going toe to toe with you guys but not at the expense of my health.

[I_M4_AU 7,950]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

So you believe being able to knowingly tell blatant lies is covered by freedom of speech - meaning one is immune to criminal or civil charges for doing so?

It is amazing what you come up with regarding a simple statement that is a reference to *1984*. Who here, or in government, is capable to immediately determine what is truth and what is a lie?  Fifty?  You?  Rachel Maddow?  That would be censorship, would it not?

This case is a great example.  It had to go through the court system to determine if it was a lie or not.

[Mikey 16,711]

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I guess we should create a *Ministry of Truth* and you can head it up.

The Biden Administration tried to establish their own "Ministry of Truth". They named it the "Disinformation Board". Happily, the effort was uncovered and shot down before it ever got established. But give Bungling Biden credit, he tried. https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-disinformation-board-likened-orwells-ministry-truth-1702190

[I_M4_AU 7,950]

26 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The Biden Administration tried to establish their own "Ministry of Truth". They named it the "Disinformation Board". Happily, the effort was uncovered and shot down before it ever got established. But give Bungling Biden credit, he tried. https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-disinformation-board-likened-orwells-ministry-truth-1702190

That was what I was trying to convey, but of course, the liberal minded (or conservatives that have lost their way) jump to a totally different take.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Them Venezuwalien votin machines is crooked as a snake and that aint no lye.  Everbuddy nose that.

Trump won.  Librals hate Trump, hate god, hate America. 

 

[TexasTiger 13,000]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

It is amazing what you come up with regarding a simple statement that is a reference to *1984*. Who here, or in government, is capable to immediately determine what is truth and what is a lie?  Fifty?  You?  Rachel Maddow?  That would be censorship, would it not?

This case is a great example.  It had to go through the court system to determine if it was a lie or not.

Pretty damn obvious to most of us.

[I_M4_AU 7,950]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Pretty damn obvious to most of us.

On which point exactly?  When Joe Biden swore he wasn’t going to institute a vaccine mandate?  Or when Rachel Maddow swore Trump was a Russian asset?  Should you be in the running for the Director of the Ministry of Truth?

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

On which point exactly?  When Joe Biden swore he wasn’t going to institute a vaccine mandate?  Or when Rachel Maddow swore Trump was a Russian asset?  Should you be in the running for the Director of the Ministry of Truth?

Start yet another thread on those topics if you want.
 

I’m talking about this thread:

This case is a great example.  It had to go through the court system to determine if it was a lie or not.

Pretty damn obvious Trump & Fox & Rudy & Sidney Powell & Pillow dude we’re lying their asses off. 

[I_M4_AU 7,950]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Start yet another thread on those topics if you want.
 

I’m talking about this thread:

This case is a great example.  It had to go through the court system to determine if it was a lie or not.

Pretty damn obvious Trump & Fox & Rudy & Sidney Powell & Pillow dude we’re lying their asses off. 

I guess that will have to be proven and not rely on you superior sense of the truth.  Does FOX et al have the opportunity to defend themselves?

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

I guess that will have to be proven and not rely on you superior sense of the truth.  Does FOX et al have the opportunity to defend themselves?

Sure. Good luck with that. Got a lot of text messages to explain. May want to begin settlement talks.

[I_M4_AU 7,950]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Sure. Good luck with that. Got a lot of text messages to explain. May want to begin settlement talks.

That would probably be the best way out.  It is what our media does best.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

That would probably be the best way out.  It is what our media does best.

“Our media”— show me one other case remotely like this one.

[I_M4_AU 7,950]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

“Our media”— show me one other case remotely like this one.

I was referring to out of court settlements.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/12/17/covington-catholic-grad-nick-sandmann-reaches-settlement-nbc/8946470002/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html

[TexasTiger 13,000]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I was referring to out of court settlements.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/12/17/covington-catholic-grad-nick-sandmann-reaches-settlement-nbc/8946470002/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html

Nicholas Sandmann, the Covington student featured in most media coverage of the incident, settled lawsuits with CNN, The Washington Post, and NBCUniversal.^[14][15][16] He later lost his suits against the New York Times, CBS, ABC, Rolling Stone magazine and newspaper and television station owner Gannett.^[17]

[I_M4_AU 7,950]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Nicholas Sandmann, the Covington student featured in most media coverage of the incident, settled lawsuits with CNN, The Washington Post, and NBCUniversal.^[14][15][16] He later lost his suits against the New York Times, CBS, ABC, Rolling Stone magazine and newspaper and television station owner Gannett.^[17]

The point being media settled the suit out of court.  The ones that didn’t I would guess there wasn’t enough there, there. 

[AU9377 5,024]

Fox is literally a cancer eating at the core of American politics.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

14 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Fox is literally a cancer eating at the core of American politics.

Funny how Fox rails about immigration and it’s owned by the most destructive immigrant we’ve ever had.

[arein0 977]

35 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The point being media settled the suit out of court.  The ones that didn’t I would guess there wasn’t enough there, there. 

Most big companies will settle out of court whether they did something wrong or not because:

1. they don't want to risk the outcome to a jury.

2. Going to trial and court brings lots of bad publicity. Even if they didn't do anything wrong they will settle outside of court to save their public image.