Oh you mean if we tell thousands of damaging lies about you on our very popular “news” channel you’re going to sue us? For real???
Lou Dobbs is out at Fox Business, just a day after the voting machine company Smartmatic filed a $2.7 billion lawsuit against him, the cable news network and several purveyors of the debunked theory that its technology was used to commit massive voter fraud.
It wasn’t really a “theory,” bunked or debunked. It was a story. Trump wanted a story so they made a story for him.
After the initial threats were made, Fox News and Fox Business ran deposition-esque segments on the shows of the three anchors now sued by Smartmatic — Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro — downplaying the evidence for such claims. Newsmax read a statement on air saying pretty much the same thing, and it has since awkwardly tried to shut down MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell when he made such claims. One America News has resisted retracting claims made on its airwaves and has ridiculed its far-right competitor for “censoring” Lindell, but it has quietly removed several stories about Dominion from its website. And the station carrying Giuliani’s radio show on Thursday played a disclaimer distancing itself from claims made on the show, to Giuliani’s chagrin.
We disavow our lies! They were never ours! It was all those weirdos who work for us! Sue them, not us!
Also reinforcing the potential legal jeopardy: Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel recently acknowledged that, during a particularly far-flung news conference held by Giuliani and then-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell at the RNC, “I certainly was concerned it was happening in my building.” She added that she was specifically worried about “what is the liability of the RNC, if these allegations are made and unfounded?”
Lie down with dogs get up with fleas and libel suits.
Comments
14 responses to “Worrying about the liability”
They could have prevented this simply, by just being interested in factual accuracy. But notice that they are only scrambling after lawsuits have been made – their concern is damage control only.
Hey, for once I’m not going to be a wet blanket about defamation claims!
The Smartmatic and Dominion claims strike me as serious claims that really do belong in court. They’ve identified specific false statements of fact. The extensive pattern of making outrageous false statements even after they’ve been challenged and refuted means that the plaintiffs have a good chance of meeting the very difficult NYT v. Sullivan standard for public figures/issues of public concern, i.e. that the defendants actually knew (or were recklessly indifferent to) the falsity of their statements. And there’s actual quantifiable reputational damage here — these companies almost certainly have or will lose business because no jurisdiction where Republicans have control over the decision is going to contract with these companies (and even in some jurisdictions controlled by Democrats, the decision-makers will decide it isn’t worth the outrage and headache).
I will quibble that the amounts asserted for damages are likely bullshit, and I wish the media would get out of the habit of breathlessly reporting “X sues Y for five BIIIILLLLION DOLLARS” like they’re Dr. Evil, but that is truly a quibble at most.
I’m not saying that either plaintiff will prevail against any or all of the defendants, but these are serious claims that belong in court, not performative or bullying threats or an attempt to drag the courts into a petty dispute. It would be nice to see some of these defendants face real consequences for their bullshit.
Heh, I never thought you would. I think the gap between one tweet from Chase Strangio and the torrent of disinformation from Giuliani et al. is pretty wide.
Oh yeah, but I’m a wet blanket on most defamation threats. I’d say about 99% of internet “I’m gonna sue!” stuff (and the people cheering it on) fall on the nonsense side, and 1% are actually reasonable cases.
These appear to be among the 1% reasonable cases. There seems to be no doubt that these companies have suffered from the lies spread about them, though perhaps not to the extent of 2.7 billion dollars.
I wonder if all the people busily deleting stuff they wish they hadn’t said from their web sites etc. reallze that the Internet never forgets. Maybe if the orange loser had got his minions in Congress to try to shut down the Wayback Machine when they could have it would be different, but it’s too late now.
Yep. That’s where the now-rarely-seen term “cartooney” came from: as a deragatory term for a cartoon attorney. “Oh, you’re gonna sue me, are you? I look forward to meeting your cartooney.”
But as you say, this time it looks like great things might be afoot in the actual world of real litigation.
Excerpt from the filing:
And there are another 6 of these. You can read it all at https://www.smartmatic.com/uploads/Smartmatic_Complaint_Against_Fox_Corporation.pdf
It is a thing of beauty.
@ Screechy Monkey, you should have a look at Australia’s defamation laws then. Try the Geoffrey Rush case, and the Rebel Wilson case. Rush sued a newspaper after they printed stories where costars accused him of sexual harassment (and he won), and Wilson sued after a women’s magazine published stories that claimed her down to earth background was made up (and she won too).
I’m not sure what your point is. I’m not disputing that there are occasionally successful plaintiffs in defamation cases, whether in Australia or in the U.S.
My point is this:
# of people who scream “defamation” on the internet >>>>>> # of people who actually retain a lawyer and send a demand letter >>>> # of people who actually follow that up with a lawsuit >>> # of people who actually win a lawsuit or achieve a non-nuisance settlement
And stick a few more “>>>” in there when it involves a high-profile issue, where a lot of this stuff is performative. For example, Devin Nunes files defamation cases left and right against anyone who criticizes him, but it’s for the in terrorem effect and fundraising value, not because he actually hopes to prevail.
It’s like I said “every eight-year-old thinks he’s going to be a professional athlete, but hardly any make it,” and you’re telling me “yeah, but look at LeBron James and Serena Williams!”
Arcadia, comparing Australia (where I live) to the USA is like comparing apples to space shuttles. The laws are totally different.
Australia lacks the free speech protections of the US’s 1st Amend. In fact, Australia lacks free speech protections completely, except in a very limited “implied right to freedom of political speech” that was found by The High Court in Sections 7 & 24 of our constitution but has no legislative protection.
Neither the Rush nor Wilson cases would have succeeded under US law.
Speaking of Australia’s lack of free speech protections, I’ve just been reminded of this sinister item from last September – Beth Rep being fined $10,000 for liking “transphobic” Facebook comments.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2020/when-she-liked-offensive-comments/
The election was rigged though. If it weren’t, Trump would never have won in 2016, and he would have lost by a much larger margin in 2020.
@ Screechy Monkey, my point is that, the laws do exist like activists think (that’s libel and I’ll sue and win), it’s just that they’re wrong about where they exist. They exist in Australia, where I live (hi Roj!), not in the US, where people are far more litigious (ironically).
Speaking of defamation cases not going well for the plaintiff, OAN is now on the hook for over $250,000 in attorney’s fees for its unsuccessful suit against Rachel Maddow
Here is a link to the May 2020 order dismissing the case. Note that the court found that Maddow’s assertion that OAN was “literally paid Russian propaganda” was, in context, protected opinion and not an actionable statement of fact.