My Fantasy...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

So I'm mopping up last night, after my head exploded while watching Rachel expose the unedited version of the ACORN tapes and Jerry Brown's critique. And I'm thinking, "Damn, I hope one of the people who got fired over this crap will sue Fox News."

Fox, of course, will argue that they're covered by the journalistic protections the First Amendment. This is errant nonsense, of course, because journalists are not allowed to fabricate evidence to support their story. They knew fully well that the allegations against ACORN -- and specifically its employees who were accused of assisting in a child prostitution ring -- were utterly and completely false. You have no constitutional right to slander, and the plaintiffs lawyers shouldn't have any problem proving this.

But here's my fantasy. They plaintiff's lawyers DON'T take the easy road and prove a reckless disregard for the truth (the standard for libel in most states). Instead, the lawyers embark on the much more ambitious route of proving that Fox News is not protected by the First Amendment at all because Fox News is not a news organization at all. Rather than just putting them on trial for a simple case of slander, Fox has to justify its right to exist.

And loses.

Sweet.



I have this other fantasy that involves Helen Mirren and a jar of mayonnaise, but that one's not very political...

[DCKit]

1. I believe Faux (in a court decision) is exempted as "entertainment" and not "news".

However, all such laws - regarding malicious slander - should still apply.