Laura Ingraham, in a text to Carlson, called her a “nut.” In a deposition, Hannity said he did not believe her theories “for one second.” Nevertheless, Powell was interviewed on Fox 11 times between Nov. It’s a major blow.”įox’s entire prime-time lineup privately disparaged Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, according to court papers. and there now appears to be substantial evidence that no one there at Fox did so. “But no one at Fox appears ready to say that he or she did believe the assertions. “One of the defenses is that even false speech about public figures is protected so long as it is believed by the speaker,” First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said. In his deposition, Murdoch said he could have prevented guests who were spouting conspiracies from going on the air, but didn’t. Murdoch was among several at Fox to say privately they didn’t believe the claims made by Trump and his allies that widespread fraud cost him reelection. In depositions released last week, Murdoch argued that Fox as a network did not endorse the claims, but that some of its commentators - Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Sean Hannity - at times did. While the case has been among the court’s most durable precedents, the newly empowered conservative majority has indicated a willingness to challenge what had been considered settled law - as it did last year in overturning abortion rights.Ī perceived strength in Dominion’s case also worries some supporters of the press.ĭominion says Fox was, in effect, torn between the truth that Joe Biden legitimately won the race and pleasing viewers who wanted to believe Trump’s lies.
#Fox news headlines for today for free#
Some advocates for free speech worry that the Dominion-Fox lawsuit ultimately could give a conservative Supreme Court a chance to revisit the standard set in the case, known as New York Times Co. Palin lost her libel suit because she couldn’t prove the newspaper erred without concern for the truth.
In one example of how the law was applied, editors at the Times acknowledged last year that an editorial mistakenly linked former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s rhetoric to an Arizona mass shooting. It ruled that news outlets are protected against a libel judgment unless it can be proven that they published with “actual malice” - knowing that something was false or acting with a “reckless disregard” to whether it was true or not. Supreme Court greatly limited the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. In a 1964 decision in a case involving The New York Times, the U.S. DeSantis, Donald Trump and other figures who have been untethered in their attacks on journalists as enemies of the people,” said Jane Hall, a communication professor at American University. “It is ironic that Fox is relying on a landmark case that was designed to help the news media play the watchdog role in a democracy and is under attack by Gov. Ron DeSantis, two favorites of many Fox News viewers, have advocated for the court to revisit the standard, which is considered the foundational case in American defamation law. In defending itself against a massive defamation lawsuit over how it covered false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election, the network is relying on a nearly 60-year-old Supreme Court ruling that makes it difficult to successfully sue media organizations for libel.įormer President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. NEW YORK (AP) - Fox News is on an unlikely collision course with two leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination over the rights of journalists.
0 kommentar(er)
