Fox asks court to drop $2.7 billion Smartmatic defamation suit, citing press protections

[sabra]

Source: CNBC

Fox Corporation is asking a New York state court to drop a $2.7 billion defamation suit brought against it by voting technology firm Smartmatic, saying its broadcasts after the Nov. 3 election were protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Smartmatic, which supplied voting systems used in Los Angeles County, brought its suit on Thursday, alleging the Fox News, a subsidiary of Fox Corporation, spread then-President Donald Trump’s lies about the election, including conspiracy theories related to its voting machines, in order to turn a profit and curry favor with Trump.

Surrogates of the president baselessly claimed that Smartmatic machines were used to steal votes for Trump and count them for President Joe Biden as part of a multiyear conspiracy, including outlandish theories about sending votes overseas.

In a response filed late Monday, Fox responded that Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the election was “objectively newsworthy” and that Fox was serving in its role as a news provider by allowing the then-president’s attorneys and surrogates to make their case on television.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/fox-asks-court-to-drop-smartmatic-suit-saying-claims-were-newsworthy.html

[soothsayer]

1. Judge has already ruled they're not news, right?

In a different proceeding. Or was that specifically about the mother tucker?

[TwilightZone]

4. It was a local station.

The assertion that it was Fox News is a myth that won't die. It was a local station and it's not as simple as it's made out to be.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/

A judge did rule that Tucker Carlson wasn't credible but that didn't apply to FN as a whole.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/judge-rules-fox-news-tucker-carlson-not-source-of-news-defamation-suit-mcdougal-trump.html

[soothsayer]

22. Ah thank you

[appmanga]

10. I believe...

...that was in response to a case in Canada. The very fact that they're supposed to be a news organization works against them: they should know better. And this wasn't reporting in good faith, it was lies under the guise of opinion, and they knew it was lies, which indicates malice. The only way this doesn't get a day in court is if Faux settles.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. Is editorial content news? I don't see it that way.

If Faux were reporting facts, there may serve as a defense, but most of their codswollop is rightfully classified as editorial - opinion is too kind a word.

[oldsoftie]

24. Thats what I was thinking; the people involved arent news people.

I dont think that any of the opinion shows have a disclaimer before the show starts. Kinda like Jim Cramers "Fast Money" show on CNBC; the old "views expressed by the host are not those of this network" etc.
And if they have to, sue THEM individually. Wouldn't you LOVE to see Hannity deposed?

[SunSeeker]

33. It doesn't matter. Alex Jones was forced to pay $100k in a defamation case.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50960730

[safeinOhio]

3. Go figure,

just before the election, all of the FOX polls head Biden ahead. Way ahead.

[Massacure]

5. Fox News Fail

The First Amendment merely says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, it doesn't protect them from being sued by non-government entities for damages resulting from stupid shit they say.

[Under The Radar]

7. Correct, Smartmatic has 1st amendment right to partition the government

For grievances and damages over their publication of slanderous information.
But I am confused why Fox is claiming why they are now the “press” when in Tucker Carlsons case lawyers claimed that Fox was entertainment not to be taken literally.

[maxsolomon]

29. Because they are situational.

They'll argue on whatever side gets them out of that particular suit.

[onenote]

42. Fox News' lawyers argued that Tucker Carlson's show was commentary

Not that it was "entertainment."

You won't find the word "entertainment" anywhere in the decision.

[Under The Radar]

43. Whatever he does is for the benefit of his audience - that isn't entertainment?

"Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

[onenote]

44. Disagree

Just because commentary is for the benefit of one's audience doesn't make it "entertainment."

Steven Colbert provides political commentary for the benefit of his audience that falls within the category of entertainment.
Eugene Robinson provides political commentary for the benefit of his audience that I don't think is properly labeled as "entertainment."
Both are constitutionally protected.

The court in the MacDougal case focused on Carlson's statements as commentary on a matter of public interest, and thus protected for that reason, not because they were "entertainment."

[Under The Radar]

46. It was Fox's own attorneys that made the statement

“ for the benefit of the audience”, not I. With my point being that even the legal representation of Carlson’s employer doesn’t feel that Tuckers act is factual news or opinion. The argument may have been of only convenience
win the case, but it was made and published nonetheless.
From the Oxford English Dictionary;
Entertainment is a form of activity that holds the attention and interest of an audience or gives pleasure and delight. It can be an idea or a task, but is more likely to be one of the activities or events that have developed over thousands of years specifically for the purpose of keeping an audience's attention.

[cstanleytech]

6. Freedom of the press does not protect you if you are caught deliberately lying to defame someone.

[William Seger]

9. Exactly. Freedom of the press does not include freedom from consequences

This was deliberate lying, attempting to advance a political agenda, and it did a lot of damage to an honest business.

[DownriverDem]

8. Wait

didn't Fox say in the past that those hosts were giving opinion and are not news casters? Which is it Fox?

[PSPS]

11. LOL. Not this again. The "gubmint" isn't even a party in the case. Sounds like trump-class lawyering

This is a simple slander case. Even the New York Times is subject to a libel suit if they print false information.

[onenote]

36. I suspect you didn't go to law school

If you did, you would know that defamation cases have a first amendment component -- read up on New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny.

[PSPS]

39. Sorry, but you fail. There was "actual malice" here. Not comparable to Sullivan. Thanks for playing.

[onenote]

40. Talk about moving the goal posts.

Your post suggests that the first amendment doesn't come into play in a lawsuit where the government isn't a party. "The "gubmint" isn't even a party in the case" and that "even the New York Times is subject to a libel suit if they print false information."

Wrong. New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny make it quite clear that the "gubmint" doesn't have to be a party to a defamation case for the case to implicate the first amendment. And in certain cases, which arguably the Smartmatic case is, it is not enough to merely show a false statement. Indeed, that's the very holding of the New York Times v. Sullivan case: it wasn't enough to show the Times' repeated a false statement. The first amendment requires that the Times be shown to have acted with actual malice.

To your credit, you eventually got to that point, but only after getting the basic principles of the relationship of the first amendment to libel law wrong.

[moreland01]

12. So, is Fox arguing

that they can say "That CNN anchor has 3 nipples and likes to date underage girls." because it's protected free speech? Defamation is defamation, not free speech.

[Firestorm49]

13. I'm not a lawyer, but to me, slander is slander - period.

[Deacon Blue]

14. Sophomoric, Nauseating Legal Position...

Sick of bearing this bullshit. Yes you have a right of free speech to protect you against THE STATE infringing upon that right. The first amendment has never protected a party from the consequences of defamation. A first-year con law student knows this, been the law since before Sullivan v. New York Times. Fox cannot even plead a colorable argument, even using crayons and a Big Chief tablet...

A grievance committee ought to send the lawyers to a refresher with law student to spend an entire semester relearning what they have forgotten or chose to ignore. After they reimburse the other side for the attorney time and expenses for having to address this frivolous legal argument.

[onenote]

41. A first year law student knows that NY Times v Sullivan and its progeny

stand for the proposition that there is a strong first amendment interest in limiting libel actions against the press for statements made about not only public officials, but public figures and matters of public importance.

To quote the Court: "we have rejected, in prior cases involving materials and persons commanding justified and important public interest, the argument that a finding of falsity alone should strip protections from the publisher."

Whether or not Fox News can establish the requisites of New York Times v. Sullivan/Curtis v Butts defense is an issue. But it would be legal malpractice for Fox News' attorneys not to make the argument.

[Jon King]

15. Remember the smirking kid a few years ago?

The smirking kid at the rally who was said to have been racist towards the American Indian protestor sued and won big money. Sorry right wingers, you can't have it both ways.

[marble falls]

16. Didn't the SOCTUS rule that Fox was under no Constitutional obligation to tell the truth? ...

Publishing libel is free speech. But it's not a protected speech.

[Demsrule86]

17. They should still be sued for damaging a company with their lies...no protection for that.

[marble falls]

26. Free speech is about speech blocked by prior restraint. It'll be interesting to hear FOX ...

... try to claim libel laws are prior restraint.

[onenote]

37. No. That piece of nonsense has been debunked countless times.

Yet it seems to persist among some people.

[rocktivity]

18. Constitutional freedom of the press isn't a factor

when you either knew or should have known that what you disseminated was false, but you disseminated it anyway.


rocktivity

[FBaggins]

32. Depends a great deal on the details

"Company XYZ changed electoral results" could easily be out of bounds. But "Trump accuses XYZ of changing electoral results" would be a true statement even if Trump's statement was false.

[Wellstone ruled]

19. Hearst Newspapers

always pushed the meme,I will publish only the News that I think is important . And as History taught us,most of it was made up. Thus given Hearst the title of Yellow News.

[Nitram]

20. Good try, Fux. Your demonstrably false and self-serving reporting affected the bottom line of

another corporation. You will have to settle or pay the cost in court.

[dlk]

21. Fox is trying to twist the First Amendment like a pretzel

Not all speech in all circumstances is protected, such as inflammatory lies disparaging voting systems, in order to undermine an election. The misunderstanding of the First Amendment (intentional or otherwise) is epidemic!

[hadEnuf]

23. So Fox news wants permission to lie even if it destroys someone's business or fuels insurrection

because "1st Amendment"? I don't think so.

Fox news did more than objectively report the news. They KNEW the information was false and are therefore complicit in ruining Smartmatic's reputation and business. "Free speech" does not relieve Fox of accountability for what they said or what they approved to be said and broadcasted.

This is also a civil suit over damages and not a constitutional matter.

Fox can shove their attempts to politicize this.

[stillcool]

25. They make the news. They don't report it.

[DFW]

27. Fox Noise will try to rely on precedent

I forget when or where, but there was lawsuit brought against them for lying while calling themselves news. The judge agreed with Fox, saying the First Amendment allowed them to say what they wanted and call it what they wanted.

BUT—that just covered lying and calling it news. Slander and defamation are another species entirely, although it sounds like it isn‘t fully clear who the true defendants are here. That has to be clarified if the suit is to have any teeth.

[SunSeeker]

34. That was a local Fox station, not Fox News, as noted up the thread.

And that "it was only entertainment" argument didn't work for Alex Jones. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50960730

[onenote]

38. There was no "its only entertainment" defense. It's a myth.

[Jimvanhise]

28. Richard Jewel would disagree

When news organizations reported that Richard Jewel was under suspicion of being the Olympic Park bomber (without evidence, leaked by the FBI which was under pressure to close the case so that the Olympics would not be shut down), he sued all of the news organizations which reported that false claim, and they all settled with him. NBC had to pay a little more because Jay Leno had described Richard Jewel as the "uni-doofus" because he was a fat guy. The story in and of itself is very interesting but unfortunately Clint Eastwood had to enhance it with a false subplot about a journalist having sex with an FBI guy to get the story, which never happened. The FBI outright tried to frame Richard Jewel to take the pressure off of them because they had nothing until months later when the real bomber was identified as an anti-abortion extremist.

[flibbitygiblets]

30. "Please don't sue me for lying about you repeatedly!"

Consequences, bitches. Consequences.

[Hekate]

31. I thought they had already embraced the "we're entertainment" defense

[SunSeeker]

35. Ask Alex Jones.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50960730

[Calista241]

45. People attack Fox News like what happens to them today won't happen to us tomorrow.

Just be careful what you wish for. They've got the Supreme Court on their side, and if they find a case that can limit what news organizations can legitimately say, they'll take it.