OAN Loses 1st Amendment Lawsuit to MSNBC

[Milchshake]

<Dominion's Ears just Perked Up>
In what could be a trend of OAN losing lawsuits in the coming year. OAN loses its defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow, will wind up paying her attorneys' fees.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a San Diego federal judge’s decision last year to dismiss One America News’s (OAN) defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow, arguing that the MSNBC host’s statement that the far-right network was "paid Russian propaganda” was “an obvious exaggeration,” rather than an asserted fact.

In a 3-0 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that Maddow’s statement “was well within the bounds of what qualified as protected speech under the First Amendment.”

“The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story,” Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote in the opinion.

“The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation,” the judge added.

The ruling against OAN, which was largely expected, stemmed from a lawsuit initially filed in 2019 in which the right-wing network argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

The network specifically mentioned a Daily Beast article that Maddow cited on her show, which said that OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

However, Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled in May 2020 that anyone who watches Maddow’s show “would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles.”

Remember kids, saying truthful things about about propaganda spewers, is protected speech.

Dominion has gotten more attention, but don't sleep on Smartmatic -- a similar company that wants *$2.7 billion* from Fox News, Giuliani, Powell, and others. There's a oral argument going on right now, and the judge has already revealed sympathy toward Smartmatic.

[Fugus]

This is basically a mirror of what happened with Tucker Carlson where Fox argued that he shouldn’t be taken seriously.

[Egomaniac]

This is basically a mirror of what happened with Tucker Carlson where Fox argued that he shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Similar but the real difference is, while what she said was obviously an exaggeration, the story itself is not being disputed and OAN does employ a reporter than also works for Sputnik...which is a Russia Owned propaganda outlet.

[Fugus]

Similar but the real difference is, while what she said was obviously an exaggeration, the story itself is not being disputed and OAN does employ a reporter than also works for Sputnik...which is a Russia Owned propaganda outlet.

Did not know that. Thank you.

[Shalcker]

Remember kids, saying truthful things about about propaganda spewers, is protected speech.

The decision says it was exaggerated lie everyone is expected to have easily seen through though.

[postman1782]

The decision says it was exaggerated lie everyone is expected to have easily seen through though.

Even though it really isn't much of a lie when they have someone from fucking Sputnik on their payroll. Literal Russian propaganda state owned trash.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The decision says it was exaggerated lie everyone is expected to have easily seen through though.

I don't see the bolded word anywhere in the decision. Plus OAN is 110% obviously getting paid by Russian propagandists.

But I have noted that you like to scream and cry about "MUH FREEZE PEACH" whenever some right wing network gets sued for lying. But we know you're a unashamed Russian and right wing propagandist that has no concern for equal treatment based on political views. That's no secret.

[Shalcker]

I don't see the bolded word anywhere in the decision. Plus OAN is 110% obviously getting paid by Russian propagandists.

That isn't something anyone apparently tried to argue in their case though. They wouldn't need to resort to "it was obvious exaggeration" defense otherwise.

But I have noted that you like to scream and cry about "MUH FREEZE PEACH" whenever some right wing network gets sued for lying. But we know you're a unashamed Russian and right wing propagandist that has no concern for equal treatment based on political views. That's no secret.

I'm unashamed left-winger of socially conservative kind. Preferring left wing approaches that actually make things better rather then spite right-wingers.

A lie is still a lie though. And sometimes right-wingers are right too.

[downnola]

I'm unashamed left-winger of socially conservative kind.

Social issues aren't separate from economic issues, they often go hand in hand. Saying you're a social conservative and a left-winger is contradictory at a philosophical level. Populism combined with social conservatism is closer to fascism (and usually is) than anything left-leaning.

A lie is still a lie though. And sometimes right-wingers are right too.

It's not a lie to point out that OAN employs Russians shills and is therefore also a shill for Russian propaganda, which is easily verifiable by actually looking up their content and comparing it to RT.

[jonnysensible]

Social issues aren't separate from economic issues, they often go hand in hand. Saying you're a social conservative and a left-winger is contradictory at a philosophical level. Populism combined with social conservatism is closer to fascism (and usually is) than anything left-leaning.
.

nazbol detected

[downnola]

That is funny, because usually when you try to bring up that worker rights should be a first priority (and ergo social rights and equality will follow), you got people screeching that it's discriminatory and that all focus should always be on the social rights with priority. Often when you bring up worker rights, there's also one or two people throwing in the "worker rights organizations have a bigoted history in the USA"-argument. At that point you start wondering, with the USA being a country completely geared towards it's economical elites, whether all these social movements aren't just a shield or decoy to avoid ever having to address shitty work conditions or economical concerns for the lower and middle classes.

In my opinion the long history of worker rights and the creation of strong wide-spread and large unions are at the root cause of there being more equality in West-Europe, without having to deal with ultra-woke new protests and outlandish ideas every few months.

I don't buy that worker's rights should take priority over "social rights" because they're both important. Widespread discrimination against a particular population (like the kind that existed for most American history) will effect that populations social and economic mobility as a whole. The Teamsters and steel worker unions were at their most powerful during a time when black Americans couldn't drink from the same water fountain as white Americans, let alone have the same job opportunities. The Teamsters provided support and were a powerful force of solidarity for civil rights back in that era, but it's not a given that discrimination ends once workers have power. That's a bunch of nonsense.

If you think the United States is completely geared towards it's economical elites (it certainly is), it shouldn't be that far of a stretch to acknowledge that it's also geared towards favoring a population that has held most of the power since the founding of the country (it certainly has and does). The United States government has been a great partner of the business community in doing in everything it can to undermine the rights of workers and unions. You should ask yourself why it's so hard for you to believe that it isn't also undermining the rights of minorities as well.

[cubby]

This is basically a mirror of what happened with Tucker Carlson where Fox argued that he shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Sort of...but the devil is in the details.
(although I might have misunderstood what you meant by "a mirror of what happened" - my bad if I did)

Fox argued that anything Tucker Carlson said should not be taken as factual:

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "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."

Which is different than what MSNBC and the Rachel Maddow show argued, specifically that her one statement re Russian propaganda, was an obvious exaggeration; but that her show in general is a factual presentation of events and analysis.

[Fugus]

Sort of...but the devil is in the details.
(although I might have misunderstood what you meant by "a mirror of what happened" - my bad if I did)

Fox argued that anything Tucker Carlson said should not be taken as factual:


Which is different than what MSNBC and the Rachel Maddow show argued, specifically that her one statement re Russian propaganda, was an obvious exaggeration; but that her show in general is a factual presentation of events and analysis.

True enough, I never watched Maddow so don’t really know about it.

[Milchshake]

I don't see the bolded word anywhere in the decision. Plus OAN is 110% obviously getting paid by Russian propagandists.

But I have noted that you like to scream and cry about "MUH FREEZE PEACH" whenever some right wing network gets sued for lying. But we know you're a unashamed Russian and right wing propagandist that has no concern for equal treatment based on political views. That's no secret.

Something that was mentioned in the Mueller and other intelligence reports over the years. Russian Disinformation campaigns rely heavily on right wing sites like OAN, Breitbart, Dailcaler, etc to spread their agenda.

Pointing this out really seems to anger them. Telling the truth about the intention of alt-righters and other authoritarians is the face that launched a thousand cries of "unfair". Or dumdum lawsuits in this case.

Curious, that extremely harsh prison sentences against Russian leftists and anarchists dont seem to trouble some of self described leftists.

[Shalcker]

Social issues aren't separate from economic issues, they often go hand in hand.

Using social issues to divide people on fringe matters of absolute minority while underplaying economic factors feeding into common issues where both sides more agree then disagree is frequently used modern tactic.

Saying you're a social conservative and a left-winger is contradictory at a philosophical level. Populism combined with social conservatism is closer to fascism (and usually is) than anything left-leaning.

I consider communist ideal to be superior to "democratic", and closer to "natural" order of things then capitalist coercion.

To realize it while keeping gains of civilization you need sufficient spare productive capacity. I think "social change" can be limited to economic areas (where i'm firmly left-wing) - the rest can largely stay and change naturally from changes in economic order, rather then putting "societal change first". Tradition has non-zero value in simplifying people's lives.

It's not a lie to point out that OAN employs Russians shills and is therefore also a shill for Russian propaganda, which is easily verifiable by actually looking up their content and comparing it to RT.

"Therefore" is a lie.

Russian propaganda employs people everywhere and repeats right-wing tropes (because they serve right-wing government, duh - that's their primary connection to Western world), and it isn't surprising that modern US economy forces journalists to get any work they can, be that Sputnik or OAN.

[downnola]

Using social issues to divide people on fringe matters of absolute minority while underplaying economic factors feeding into common issues where both sides more agree then disagree is frequently used modern tactic.

Where do people underplay "economic factors" in favor of social issues? Is this the "we can't chew bubble gum and walk at the same time" fallacy I'm seeing? There's no reason whatsoever that we can't do both, especially when the mobility of everyone should be taken into account, not just the people who have already got theirs.

I consider communist ideal to be superior to "democratic", and closer to "natural" order of things then capitalist coercion.
To realize it while keeping gains of civilization you need sufficient spare productive capacity. I think "social change" can be limited to economic areas (where i'm firmly left-wing) - the rest can largely stay and change naturally from changes in economic order, rather then putting "societal change first". Tradition has non-zero value in simplifying people's lives.

"Democratic" ideals are not oppositional to "communist" ideals unless your idea of communism is one of a totalitarian, single-party rule with no feedback mechanism from the people living in said society. This is why I pointed out that conservative populism is closer to fascism than left-wing philosophy because of how anti-democratic and illiberal it is despite the lip service it pays to economic inequality, which has more to do with wanting to secure economic mobility for the in-group (the source of it's anti-elitism) rather than for everyone as a whole.

This is one reason why the right-wing populists are working as hard as they can right now to disseminate anti-Afghan refugees propaganda in the U.S. despite the country being halfway around the globe.

"Therefore" is a lie.

No, it isn't. It's a statement of fact.

[Endus]

Using social issues to divide people on fringe matters of absolute minority while underplaying economic factors feeding into common issues where both sides more agree then disagree is frequently used modern tactic.

The whole argument here is nonsense.

The "fringe matters" of social issues are matters of fundamental importance, like marriage equality. The only "dividing" of people is in the attempt to oppose those freedoms being shared by all; literally the only people seeking to "divide" over these matters are on one political side, pushing bigotry and hatred in place of reason and empathy.

It's their bigotry and hatred that create the division. Not the social issue they're frothing about. And that division exists regardless of the political decision on it, so we may as well make the reasonable political choice to protect the innocent rather than empower the abusive.

And economic issues are social issues. Attempting to separate the two is exactly the kind of "tactic" to foster division that you're supposedly arguing against.

To realize it while keeping gains of civilization you need sufficient spare productive capacity. I think "social change" can be limited to economic areas (where i'm firmly left-wing) - the rest can largely stay and change naturally from changes in economic order, rather then putting "societal change first". Tradition has non-zero value in simplifying people's lives.

Tradition has zero value.

If what is "traditional" is "good", then it is "good" regardless of being traditional.
If what is "traditional" is "bad" or "harmful", then it should be abandoned and denigrated as unjust.
And if what is "traditional" is neither good nor bad, you've admitted there is no value to it to begin with.

There is no "simplification", as tradition is learned behaviour as much as any new thing would be.

[Muzjhath]

That is funny, because usually when you try to bring up that worker rights should be a first priority (and ergo social rights and equality will follow), you got people screeching that it's discriminatory and that all focus should always be on the social rights with priority. Often when you bring up worker rights, there's also one or two people throwing in the "worker rights organizations have a bigoted history in the USA"-argument. At that point you start wondering, with the USA being a country completely geared towards it's economical elites, whether all these social movements aren't just a shield or decoy to avoid ever having to address shitty work conditions or economical concerns for the lower and middle classes.

In my opinion the long history of worker rights and the creation of strong wide-spread and large unions are at the root cause of there being more equality in West-Europe, without having to deal with ultra-woke new protests and outlandish ideas every few months.

Well, history taught women all over Europe that once the men who worked in the factories with them got their right to vote, they stopped supporting women getting the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

"Democratic" ideals are not oppositional to "communist" ideals unless your idea of communism is one of a totalitarian, single-party rule with no feedback mechanism from the people living in said society. This is why I pointed out that conservative populism is closer to fascism than left-wing philosophy because of how anti-democratic and illiberal it is despite the lip service it pays to economic inequality, which has more to do with wanting to secure economic mobility for the in-group (the source of it's anti-elitism) rather than for everyone as a whole.

I'll also point out that Marx was a "democrat", in that he wanted everyone to have equal say in voting etc. Probably he'd want full adult sufferage 1 person 1 vote direct democracy in his ideal community post revolution. (Which, at that point in his mind would be a 'dictatorship' of the proletariat because they'd outnumber everyone else).

[cubby]

True enough, I never watched Maddow so don’t really know about it.

She is spot on brilliant with her analysis and factual presentation. Stanford undergrad with a Doctorate from Oxford. Her show is especially hated by the right because she is so good at what she does.

[downnola]

Because that is what has been literally happening politically across the USA over the past few years. The moment there seems to be some movement building for worker rights it instantly gets hijacked for social issues... There were literally multiple times during the Bernie campaign when worker rights and unions were discussed that some people stormed the stage and complained that there should be more talk about minority rights instead.

Whenever someone says "worker rights" in the USA, you'll instantly have a bunch of people shouting: "No, BLM!" or "No, transgender bathrooms!" instead.

Lol, this isn't something that happens on a regular basis whatsoever in the United States, sorry. I'd love some evidence of this being a real thing.

Considering there is an entire sub-group of anti-"sjw" Bernie Bros (many of whom voted for Trump) that still hold a grudge against BLM because two protestors interrupted his Social Security and Medicare event kind of proves their point that many of his supporters don't give a shit about racial equality, does it not?

Sanders didn't disagree with them either and doesn't think one takes precedent over the other.

Sanders told NBC's "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd last weekend that the "Black Lives Matter" activists raised an important issue, but he said economic inequality and institutional racism are "parallel problems" and both must be addressed at the same time.