FOX News Settles with Seth Rich Family

[Milchshake]

FOX News has reached a settlement with the family of Seth Rich just before Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs were scheduled to give depositions. They promoted conspiracy theories that the Clintons and the DNC had him murdered.

Fox News's propagation of this conspiracy theory was one of the cruelest acts in media of the 21st Century. The fact that they fought the Riches in court for more than two years is an outrage as well.





Fox News star Sean Hannity was once his network’s most prominent booster of conspiracy theories about murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, only stopping the rumor-mongering after Rich’s grieving parents publicly begged him to knock it off.

Now, Hannity will have to answer questions, under oath, about Fox’s coverage of Rich’s death. Hannity, along with Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and a host of Fox staffers, is set to be deposed in late October over the network’s debunked reporting on Rich, which falsely claimed that he had leaked thousands of Democratic emails to WikiLeaks—a leak, they suggested, that led to his politically-motivated murder.

[PC2]

@PresidentElectMilchschake, what's there to talk about and discuss about this kind of topic?

It's exactly like the Covington case settlement, we have no way of knowing whether they got basically nothing or if they ended up getting millions. A lot of torts like defamation or in this case an "intentional emotional distress" claim are hard to prove so the plaintiff just settles for a very modest sum. There is essentially nothing interesting about these cases.

[Felya]

@PresidentElectMilchschake, what's there to talk about and discuss about this kind of topic?

It's exactly like the Covington case settlement, we have no way of knowing whether they got basically nothing or if they ended up getting millions. A lot of torts like defamation or in this case an "intentional emotional distress" claim are hard to prove so the plaintiff just settles for a very modest sum. There is essentially nothing interesting about these cases.

Excuse me? Talking about an assassination plot by a presidential candidate, is the same as groups bitching at each other during protests? Are you sure?

You do know that Roger Stone was busted for timing the release of these emails, that this kid was supposedly murdered by Hillary for, with Wikileaks to help Trump’s campaign? Trump gave Stone a get out of jail free card for obstruction of justice, that included threatening witnesses. You sure Hannity, the guy Trump shares a lawyer with, had nothing to do with it?

You sure it’s the same?

[cubby]

@PresidentElectMilchschake, what's there to talk about and discuss about this kind of topic?

It's exactly like the Covington case settlement, we have no way of knowing whether they got basically nothing or if they ended up getting millions. A lot of torts like defamation or in this case an "intentional emotional distress" claim are hard to prove so the plaintiff just settles for a very modest sum. There is essentially nothing interesting about these cases.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. The issue was major, as the media outlets in question were perpetrating conspiracy theories with no basis of fact, and that in and of itself meets the criteria for defamation and intentional infliction. We certainly don't know the outcome, because they settled, but saying there is nothing interesting might not quite be on the mark.

[beanman12345]

Spot the idiot who watches fox news.

[Felya]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. The issue was major, as the media outlets in question were perpetrating conspiracy theories with no basis of fact, and that in and of itself meets the criteria for defamation and intentional infliction. We certainly don't know the outcome, because they settled, but saying there is nothing interesting might not quite be on the mark.

There is another aspect to this. Covington case, had footage that distorted what might have happened. It wasn’t doctored, but was from a specific perspective. Now... what’s the equivalent camera angle, that lead Fox News believe that Hillary ordered this kid’s murder? What did they see, like the original tape of Covington, to believe that Hillary hired a hit man?

[cubby]

There is another aspect to this. Covington case, had footage that distorted what might have happened. It wasn’t doctored, but was from a specific perspective. Now... what’s the equivalent camera angle, that lead Fox News believe that Hillary ordered this kid’s murder? What did they see, like the original tape of Covington, to believe that Hillary hired a hit man?

Exactly. The blatant conspiracy pushed by Faux "News" and other media outlets was a horrific assault on the Seth Rich family. I wouldn't be surprised if the settlement was for millions of dollars, given that Fox faced having two of their biggest liars giving sworn testimony and then facing perjury charges when that shitshow inevitably went off the rails.

I wouldn't be surprised if Fox's legal strategy was to push hard until a trial was upon them, and then settle, hoping their legal juggernaut is enough to scare away most litigants. And I wouldn't be surprised on the other end if Seth Rich's family had some "legal fund" financial backing.

[PC2]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. The issue was major, as the media outlets in question were perpetrating conspiracy theories with no basis of fact, and that in and of itself meets the criteria for defamation and intentional infliction. We certainly don't know the outcome, because they settled, but saying there is nothing interesting might not quite be on the mark.

News organizations shouldn't spread conspiracy theories but a conspiracy theory by itself doesn't automatically imply a legal violation such as defamation or emotional distress. For those you must prove that they were intentionally trying to cause emotional distress or spreading a lie that was not based on an unintentional error.

[Endus]

News organizations shouldn't spread conspiracy theories but a conspiracy theory by itself doesn't automatically imply a legal violation such as defamation or emotional distress. For those you must prove that they were intentionally trying to cause emotional distress or spreading a lie that was not based on an unintentional error.

You don't need to prove intent at all.

You need only prove that any reasonable person would know that such a story would be emotionally distressing to its subjects.

You also don't need to prove it was a lie. The onus is entirely on the party who pushed the story to justify that they had good-faith reasonable confidence that the story was likely true.

Somehow, you've got this stuff entirely backwards. Are you unfamiliar with how civil suits work? They aren't criminal cases, and don't abide by the same standards of evidence and there is no presumption of innocence whatsoever.

[jonnysensible]

we have no way of knowing whether they got basically nothing or if they ended up getting millions.

they got over 7 figures, so a million +

[PC2]

You need only prove that any reasonable person would know that such a story would be emotionally distressing.

Sure but what a "reasonable person would know" is subjective and isn't based on an objective criteria. Our legal system is very good in my opinion and that's why they set the bar very high on that standard. That's why only a tiny amount of people and organizations are found guilty of these legal violations every year.

- - - Updated - - -

they got over 7 figures, so a million +

Is that hearsay or do you have a direct source?

[Endus]

Sure but what a "reasonable person would know" is subjective and isn't based on an objective criteria. Our legal system is very good in my opinion and that's why they set the bar very high on that standard. That's why only a tiny amount of people are found guilty of these legal violations every year.

The legal system is subjective by nature and design.

This is literally the purpose of juries and judges.

If there were no subjectivity, court proceedings would be unnecessary, as the objective ruling would derive naturally and clearly from the evidence.

You're not making an argument here at all. You're sealioning and misrepresenting how courts function at a basic level.

[Orange Joe]

@PresidentElectMilchschake, what's there to talk about and discuss about this kind of topic?

It's exactly like the Covington case settlement, we have no way of knowing whether they got basically nothing or if they ended up getting millions. A lot of torts like defamation or in this case an "intentional emotional distress" claim are hard to prove so the plaintiff just settles for a very modest sum. There is essentially nothing interesting about these cases.

Is it ironic that you have the most posts in a thread that you claim has nothing to discuss?

[PC2]

Is it ironic that you have the most posts in a thread that you claim has nothing to discuss?

What I'm saying is this thread can't last very long because there really is nothing to debate and there's no idea that can be developed. We can't even know any of the relevant details of the settlement.

I think the large majority of threads are interesting but Milch has been copy-pasting his personal news feed into GenOT for some reason and that's why half of them don't even make it past the first page.

[Saltysquidoon]

Sure but what a "reasonable person would know" is subjective and isn't based on an objective criteria. Our legal system is very good in my opinion and that's why they set the bar very high on that standard. That's why only a tiny amount of people and organizations are found guilty of these legal violations every year?

1. "The hypothetical reasonable man" is such a cornerstone of our legal system people write textbooks about them, academics have careers analysing the theoretical reasonable observer, If you wanted to read every judgment ever written that featured them you would die trying.
1a. Subjective factors can be elements of a tort/violation or crime. That's why we have modifiers like 'negligent' or 'reckless'.
2. The bar in civil cases is 'on the balance of probabilities' the violation/tort/breach occurred. That's literally a 51% chance (unless otherwise modified by statute).

[Milchshake]

Exactly. The blatant conspiracy pushed by Faux "News" and other media outlets was a horrific assault on the Seth Rich family. I wouldn't be surprised if the settlement was for millions of dollars, given that Fox faced having two of their biggest liars giving sworn testimony and then facing perjury charges when that shitshow inevitably went off the rails.

I wouldn't be surprised if Fox's legal strategy was to push hard until a trial was upon them, and then settle, hoping their legal juggernaut is enough to scare away most litigants. And I wouldn't be surprised on the other end if Seth Rich's family had some "legal fund" financial backing.

Just think, the active conspiracy was so damaging, FOX did not want Hannity or Dobbs testifying about it. I'd imagine its so bad they would lose their FCC license.

FCC, if you're listening, look into someone's emails.

[Felya]

Just think, the active conspiracy was so damaging, FOX did not want Hannity or Dobbs testifying about it. I'd imagine its so bad they would lose their FCC license.

FCC, if you're listening, look into someone's emails.

Specially when Trump is balls down his throat close to Hannity, with this helping Trump’s campaign by making Clinton seem more nefarious and cover up that Stone was coordinating a release of Clinton emails with Wikileaks. Something Stone went to jail for, until Trump got him out.

[Milchshake]

Specially when Trump is balls down his throat close to Hannity, with this helping Trump’s campaign by making Clinton seem more nefarious and cover up that Stone was coordinating a release of Clinton emails with Wikileaks. Something Stone went to jail for, until Trump got him out.

It's a very strong parallel for what caused New Zealand to pull Fox's licenses.

That kind of precedent scares them.

[unfilteredJW]

What I'm saying is this thread can't last very long because there really is nothing to debate and there's no idea that can be developed. We can't even know any of the relevant details of the settlement.

I think the large majority of threads are interesting but Milch has been copy-pasting his personal news feed into GenOT for some reason and that's why half of them don't even make it past the first page.

Then fuck off and let those that want to discuss it do that. The fact you act as some arbiter Of what’s worthy of discussion on these forums Is baffling considering the complete trouncing you experience in almost every discussion you enter.

[callipygoustp]

The more often that people who pull this shit are held accountable, the better.

Kind of wish the family had said "fuck the money, we want these lying assholes on the stand" but, they're grieving I'm not.