Dominion Files Suit against Fox News, Smartmatic Piles On

[postman1782]

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...ec02da78ac2760

This is on top of them suing Mike Lindell for $1.3 billion, Sydney Powell for $1.3 billion, and Rudy Guiliani for $1.3 billion.

Smartmatic, a rival company for Dominion has also sued Fox, Powell, and Guiliani for $2.7 billion.

At this rate, Fox News and everyone sued here will be bankrupt if theses 2 companies win their lawsuits. And with all of the evidence they have, it should be pretty easy to prove, thanks to hundreds of hours of tape, tweets, Facebook posts and their own articles.

[jonnysensible]

shit i need some stonks in these companies they gonna get paid

[Breccia]

There are some interesting possibilities in play here.

1) FOX News didn't have to be the origin of the malicious statements. They simply needed to play someone else's malicious statements, knowing they were maliciuos.

2) This is the first target who isn't directly working for Trump. Well, officially at least.

3) FOX News probably has that much money.

4) We've talked about this briefly in another thread: FOX News can't take the "nobody reasonable would listen to us" deense. If they did, Biden could eject them from the White House. Even if the defense fails.

And the big one:

5) FOX News can't settle. Powell and Giuliani are both done. Their careers are over. FOX News still wants to stay on the air. Admitting they intentionally pushed Fake News, which led to a murderous insurrection? They'd not only begging to be shut down, they're begging for, say, House Democrats to take legal actions

I'd like @cubby to weigh in on #1 please. If someone makes an objectively false, malicious statement, and a second party quotes them over and over without saying "this is false", is the second party liable?

[Felya]

Guys... that was all a joke... no one in their right might could possibly believe these incredible election fraud accusations... Hugo Chavez is dead? Hello? I don’t see anyone suing Comedy Central for running comedy... Why so serious?

Edit: Fair and balanced... is very obviously about weightlessness in the fairy dimension... do they have to spell it out? Fox... news... is... a... joke... and so is what I call spelling.

[Dontrike]

With any hope Fox will let this go on and lose millions and then ultimately lose and they get rid of their prime offenders.

[Logwyn]

With any hope Fox will let this go on and lose millions and then ultimately lose and they get rid of their prime offenders.

They'll either settle or tie it up in litigation for a few years.

[Dontrike]

They'll either settle or tie it up in litigation for a few years.

Wouldn't surprise me if they made a public apology, pay a fine or some low cost settlement, and maybe get rid of one of their hosts to appease people.

[Endus]

I'd like @cubby to weigh in on #1 please. If someone makes an objectively false, malicious statement, and a second party quotes them over and over without saying "this is false", is the second party liable?

Not Cubby, and IANAL, but I'm pretty darned sure that once you quote someone and present their case, you've made your own statement. Civil liability isn't predicated on the malice in the original statement, but your own malice in making your own, quoting and supporting that original statement. The difficulty is going to be that it needs to be an expression of opinion, not just a dry reporting; "Sydney Powell said a thing" isn't likely to cross the line into malice, since there's no explicit support for her statement there. If any talking heads said "Sydney Powell said a thing, and what she's accusing Dominion of is terrible, we should all be worried about Dominion's actions", now the lawsuit's off to the races and Fox News is liable. That liability starts where the direct quote stops, basically.

The problem for Fox News specifically, rather than just the talking heads, and why Fox News themselves would be liable, is that Fox News allowed this to continue without sanction over multiple episodes, for weeks, without any repercussions or editing by the station. That's implicit sanction of what those opinion shows were expressing, and that's why they'll get found liable.

They'll either settle or tie it up in litigation for a few years.

Pretty sure Dominion would be perfectly happy to tie it up in litigation with them, if they've got as strong a case as they appear to. Dragging a case out on technicalities only works if your opponent can't afford to keep prosecuting.

[Fugus]

Wouldn't surprise me if they made a public apology, pay a fine or some low cost settlement, and maybe get rid of one of their hosts to appease people.

If I were dominion, I wouldn’t settle for anything less than removing them all and banning them from hiring any commentators again and require that any place that is pretending to be news actually be news.

[Milchshake]

If they can get this lawsuit in front of the Right Judge. And Find a jury dumb enough. It might work!
BAsically the Thiel/Hulk Hogan plan to sue Gawker.

[Fugus]

If they can get this lawsuit in front of the Right Judge. And Find a jury dumb enough. It might work!
BAsically the Thiel/Hulk Hogan plan to sue Gawker.

Doesn’t need to be a dumb jury, an educated one would be even more likely to convict Fox in this given what they said and their track record with the facts.

[Breccia]

Not Cubby, and IANAL, but I'm pretty darned sure that once you quote someone and present their case, you've made your own statement.

I am curious where the line is drawn. Lucky for us, FOX News has so many opinion presenters to make this specific case easy.

[D Luniz]

I wonder if their efforts to mute mics for last month might save them.
Either way, I wonder if OAN and Newsmax are targeted. Cause didn't they get a "don't trash anything" notice around the same time as Fox?

[cors8]

I wonder if their efforts to mute mics for last month might save them.
Either way, I wonder if OAN and Newsmax are targeted. Cause didn't they get a "don't trash anything" notice around the same time as Fox?

If Fox loses, OAN and Newsmax are probably much easier cases since they were more "all in" compared to Fox. Probably saves Dominion lawyer fees by forcing the two smaller "news agencies" to settle.

[Zan15]

They'll either settle or tie it up in litigation for a few years.

like the last dozen multi million dollar sex lawsuits.

they will settle and sign NDA's so you don't really know what they admitted too and then they will claim they didn't settle......

[cubby]

There are some interesting possibilities in play here.

1) FOX News didn't have to be the origin of the malicious statements. They simply needed to play someone else's malicious statements, knowing they were maliciuos.

2) This is the first target who isn't directly working for Trump. Well, officially at least.

3) FOX News probably has that much money.

4) We've talked about this briefly in another thread: FOX News can't take the "nobody reasonable would listen to us" deense. If they did, Biden could eject them from the White House. Even if the defense fails.

And the big one:

5) FOX News can't settle. Powell and Giuliani are both done. Their careers are over. FOX News still wants to stay on the air. Admitting they intentionally pushed Fake News, which led to a murderous insurrection? They'd not only begging to be shut down, they're begging for, say, House Democrats to take legal actions

I'd like @cubby to weigh in on #1 please. If someone makes an objectively false, malicious statement, and a second party quotes them over and over without saying "this is false", is the second party liable?

It's a very tough line to draw here, and as a democracy, we would normally want as much leeway given to our news services. Of course, some of those "news" services start with "Faux"....

The issue is going to come down to a couple of complicated legal issues, but at it's face, I see Fox News winning this suit (I do NOT see the individual "attorneys" winning their suits, but that's a different issue). What it will come down to is that Fox News took the speaker of the malicious statements at face value and reported them as news. They trusted the attorney, who was filing suits and claiming evidence, to be telling the truth. The final ruling will be 1" thick, but that's where it will come down.

We all know Faux "News" is just a shrill (yes, that's the spelling I want) for the neo-con-insane-GOtrumP crowd, and lies through their teeth on an almost daily basis. To say nothing of their almost fraudulent "spin" (see also lying) of any piece of fact. But we rightly protect our news agencies because they need to be free to accurately report the news, overall.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Not Cubby, and IANAL, but I'm pretty darned sure that once you quote someone and present their case, you've made your own statement. Civil liability isn't predicated on the malice in the original statement, but your own malice in making your own, quoting and supporting that original statement. The difficulty is going to be that it needs to be an expression of opinion, not just a dry reporting; "Sydney Powell said a thing" isn't likely to cross the line into malice, since there's no explicit support for her statement there. If any talking heads said "Sydney Powell said a thing, and what she's accusing Dominion of is terrible, we should all be worried about Dominion's actions", now the lawsuit's off to the races and Fox News is liable. That liability starts where the direct quote stops, basically.

The problem for Fox News specifically, rather than just the talking heads, and why Fox News themselves would be liable, is that Fox News allowed this to continue without sanction over multiple episodes, for weeks, without any repercussions or editing by the station. That's implicit sanction of what those opinion shows were expressing, and that's why they'll get found liable.



Pretty sure Dominion would be perfectly happy to tie it up in litigation with them, if they've got as strong a case as they appear to. Dragging a case out on technicalities only works if your opponent can't afford to keep prosecuting.

Something to consider is that in addition to what has been mentioned if I read correctly some of Dominion Employees have had to go into hiding due to threats to their lives. Specifically due to the unfounded claims made by the dumb bunch.

[cubby]

Not Cubby, and IANAL, but I'm pretty darned sure that once you quote someone and present their case, you've made your own statement. Civil liability isn't predicated on the malice in the original statement, but your own malice in making your own, quoting and supporting that original statement. The difficulty is going to be that it needs to be an expression of opinion, not just a dry reporting; "Sydney Powell said a thing" isn't likely to cross the line into malice, since there's no explicit support for her statement there. If any talking heads said "Sydney Powell said a thing, and what she's accusing Dominion of is terrible, we should all be worried about Dominion's actions", now the lawsuit's off to the races and Fox News is liable. That liability starts where the direct quote stops, basically.

The problem for Fox News specifically, rather than just the talking heads, and why Fox News themselves would be liable, is that Fox News allowed this to continue without sanction over multiple episodes, for weeks, without any repercussions or editing by the station. That's implicit sanction of what those opinion shows were expressing, and that's why they'll get found liable.



Pretty sure Dominion would be perfectly happy to tie it up in litigation with them, if they've got as strong a case as they appear to. Dragging a case out on technicalities only works if your opponent can't afford to keep prosecuting.

While I disagree with your conclusion regarding the suit brought against Fox by Dominion, I will be the first to admit it could go either way.

To your second point, I'm very glad Dominion is doing this - all three suits. It's a terrific set of facts, even against Fox, and they have the resources to litigate this through to conclusion. Fox will not be able to bury them in paperwork.

- - - Updated - - -

Something to consider is that in addition to what has been mentioned if I read correctly some of Dominion Employees have had to go into hiding due to threats to their lives. Specifically due to the unfounded claims made by the dumb bunch.

And this will be a secondary, yet very important, development of those law suits brought by Dominion. Rudi and Sydney both specifically named Dominion employees as having rigged the election. Those statement are entirely libelous, and could result in criminal charges if any harm comes to those employees specifically named. I haven't looked to see if those individuals are filing separately, or if they are included in the larger suit by Dominion, or if they simply haven't filed any law suit on their own.

Your legal watch-phrase here is going to be: Proximate Cause

For those who don't read the article, several top level Dominion employees are now on paid leave, living in hiding, with daily death threats against themselves and their families.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

like the last dozen multi million dollar sex lawsuits.

they will settle and sign NDA's so you don't really know what they admitted too and then they will claim they didn't settle......

Big difference is that in those sex lawsuits...the Plaintiff usually doesn't have the resources to continue a drawn out litigation. The only advantage they had was Fox News wanted it taken care of quickly, quietly, and with no public admittance of any wrong-doing.

Dominion can sustain a drawn out legal battle and Fox knows it. I'm not saying they can definitely win...but I am saying is that they can't be bullied into agreeing to a settlement they don't want.

[cubby]

like the last dozen multi million dollar sex lawsuits.

they will settle and sign NDA's so you don't really know what they admitted too and then they will claim they didn't settle......

I do not see Dominion settling this or other similar cases with NDA's. They are in the perfect position to play this out to the end, and their set of facts is almost perfect. I understand what you're saying about the last several cases of similar character, i.e. lying and "news" programs reporting it, then either winning the case or having it settled with NDAs.

But here we have a client with the resources to carry this through, and who also want the public verdict rather than the closed door payout - or, more accurately, can afford to litigate out to result in a public verdict AND a public payout.