Jump to content

Smartmatic files $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News, Rudy and Sidney Powell


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Has she gone to ground? Hiding in Epstein's basement?

There or the Pizza Joint, but Dog the Bounty Hunter is on her ass!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Voting technology company Smartmatic files $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell over 'disinformation campaign' A voting technology company swept up in baseless c

The really funny (sad beyond belief) part is that people like Dog/Max/Warbird swallowed the whole story hook, line ,and sinker.

In related news ... Judge Orders OAN to Pay Rachel Maddow and MSNBC $250,000 in Attorney Fees For Filing Frivolous Defamation Lawsuit https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/judge-orders-oan

Posted Images

29 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I can't help you if you refuse to even understand the NPV proposed law. Yes, not a typo, law(s)

Again, what you do in your own state LAWS is your business.

What you do in other states, is either their business, or the domain of an amendment. Obviously, if your state chooses to allocate your EC votes with a popular election overlay, that's your business, and since I presumably don't live or vote in your state, it's not my business.

Remember, I live in one of the states that you have designated as a "flyover"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I wonder how Mikey voted in his own state?  I'm guessing he voted for it.

 

On November 3, 2020, Colorado voters approved the National Popular Vote law that had been enacted in 2019 by the Colorado legislature and Governor.   Click here for official election returns from Colorado Secretary of State.

I voted against it, obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Tough shit, fuck your feelings.

I'm thinking Mikey is surprised his own state signed on....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Mikey's always surprised at reality.

He "Thinks" he voted no, but he can't' access the blockchain record so he is unhappy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mikewof said:

Again, as for Fox, I haven't seen their offending bits. Have you? Could you post something that justifies them being sued, or even just threatened to be sued by Dominion?

I don't think Smartmatic's argument boils down to any single example like that.  I think it's more about how Fox signal-boosted insane theories.  Fox is going to argue that they aren't responsible for what their guests say, but when your response to easily-debunked bullshit is to have that guest back on again the next day... and your hosts act convinced...

I dunno, maybe they'll pull out the old "it's just entertainment" argument again.   

Rudy (and Lyn, and Sidney, and Mike...) are toast 

8 hours ago, mikewof said:

you have a problem with my suggestion of a simple open-source blockchain to make voting better?

The problem is that most people will trust it even less, not more.  They don't understand & are suspicious of new-to-them technology.  That was wind in the sails of Rudy et al, and/but it'll be a headwind against blockchain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A $2.7B lawsuit against very powerful companies and specific people vs. some dude who builds folding canoes.  An apparently ex-reporter who is also an election expert, scientist and pandemic expert, all on a sailing website and who most people ignore.  Also an expert on blockchain and impeachment law. 

 

I'll go with Dominion's lawyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

I don't think Smartmatic's argument boils down to any single example like that.  I think it's more about how Fox signal-boosted insane theories.  Fox is going to argue that they aren't responsible for what their guests say, but when your response to easily-debunked bullshit is to have that guest back on again the next day... and your hosts act convinced...

I dunno, maybe they'll pull out the old "it's just entertainment" argument again.   

Rudy (and Lyn, and Sidney, and Mike...) are toast 

The problem is that most people will trust it even less, not more.  They don't understand & are suspicious of new-to-them technology.  That was wind in the sails of Rudy et al, and/but it'll be a headwind against blockchain.

That's why I had hoped to see a clip from what Fox Media actually did. The requirements of defamation are apparently different for public figures, but news stations ... this "signal boosting", is it defamation? Isn't any and all coverage of any and all conspiratorial wackadoos a form of this amplification?

Most news IS a form of entertainment, that's reality, especially Fox, which is seems to take the Weekly World News approach sometimes. But news as entertainment? NPR fits that bill as well as the New York Times, MSNBC and others, even C-SPAN.

News that is news without entertainment? Very few people actually watch things like that ...

As for an election log in a blockchain, I'm not convinced that the general public will run screaming in terror from an electronic log. One of my neighbors drives a Tesla, the other neighbor sends money on Venmo and the other has her food delivered by an app on her phone, I'm pretty sure we can handle a log of the election tallies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mikewof said:

Again, as for Fox, I haven't seen their offending bits. Have you? Could you post something that justifies them being sued, or even just threatened to be sued by Dominion?

Mikey, the Trump lover, cutting space for Fox News.  It never ends.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Sidney the Kraken is so confident in her bullshit that she is ducking the process server. Bullshitters have a tough time in court. 

Reality bites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

It is looking more and more like the  lawsuits and prosecutions will keep the former Kakistocracy and the voting machine companies dancing for a while. 

Fixed that for you, no charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

It is looking more and more like the  lawsuits and prosecutions will keep the players who ran the  Kakistocracy dancing for a while. 

 

5 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Fixed that for you, no charge.

At least you tried 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I wonder how Mikey voted in his own state?  I'm guessing he voted for it.

 

On November 3, 2020, Colorado voters approved the National Popular Vote law that had been enacted in 2019 by the Colorado legislature and Governor.   Click here for official election returns from Colorado Secretary of State.

I know I did, My wifie and kid did too..  MIL I Donno, I do know she didn't vote for the shitstain though, so there is that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mikewof said:

The requirements of defamation are apparently different for public figures, but news stations .

Whether the defendant is a public figure makes no difference to anything. 

Whether the plaintiff is a public figure, makes a big difference. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, frenchie said:

Whether the defendant is a public figure makes no difference to anything. 

Whether the plaintiff is a public figure, makes a big difference. 

Are you certain about that?

Also, what is the public figure status of the voting machines company?

Do you think this will ever see a trial? I doubt it will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Are you certain about that?

Also, what is the public figure status of the voting machines company?

Do you think this will ever see a trial? I doubt it will.

Mikey is now opining on the law. This is gonna be good

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Mikey is now opining on the law. This is gonna be good

Is there a subject he doesn't opine on?

And it won't be good. It won't even be entertainingly stupid.

Just plain, ordinary stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2021 at 4:36 PM, mikewof said:

Again, as for Fox, I haven't seen their offending bits. Have you?

Mikey hasn't seen COVID-19 either, have you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Mikey is now opining on the law. This is gonna be good

How is it that you can be a lawyer with such notably deficient reading comprehension?

I asked him if he was certain about that, and I asked him about the company's public figure status? Does that sound an "opinion" or does that read like me asking him a question?

I do know a few lawyers and all of them seem to be able to read just fine, what happened with you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Is there a subject he doesn't opine on?

And it won't be good. It won't even be entertainingly stupid.

Just plain, ordinary stupid.

Fail for you too, you didn't bother to read either. In your defense though, your job as a laundry sniffer doesn't require much reading comprehension..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2021 at 12:29 PM, mikewof said:

Remember, I live in one of the states that you have designated as a "flyover"?

 

On 2/10/2021 at 12:57 PM, mikewof said:

You came to that conclusion all by yourself or did your wet nurse help you out?

 

On 2/10/2021 at 4:18 PM, mikewof said:

is it defamation? Isn't any and all coverage of any and all conspiratorial wackadoos a form of this amplification?

 

7 hours ago, mikewof said:

 

Also, what is the public figure status of the voting machines company?

 

43 minutes ago, mikewof said:

How is it that you can be a lawyer with such notably deficient reading comprehension?

 

43 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Does that sound an "opinion" or does that read like me asking him a question?

 

43 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I do know a few lawyers and all of them seem to be able to read just fine, what happened with you? 

 

42 minutes ago, mikewof said:

With what, specifically?

Just on this page?

The shills friend, the question mark ?  Note the others here who do the same, same school of media training, need to keep the posts/responses and hits up?

OR  does he just need a lot of help from us?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, rastro said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just on this page?

The shills friend, the question mark ?  Note the others here who do the same, same school of media training, need to keep the posts/responses and hits up?

OR  does he just need a lot of help from us?

so so so many interesting questions does little Mikey have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

so so so many interesting questions does little Mikey have.

It's that same fake head tilted innocent puppy Tucker Carlson "just wondering" move.  I think dog, jizzy and woofey simply follow his lead and that's really all we get out of them.  The Alfred E Newman style of "conversation".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

It's that same fake head tilted innocent puppy Tucker Carlson "just wondering" move.  I think dog, jizzy and woofey simply follow his lead and that's really all we get out of them.  The Alfred E Newman style of "conversation".

Someday you might develop the maturity to actually follow the conversation, instead of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with your ill-defined anti-morals is in fact on the wrong path.

But I'm not sure that will ever actually happen. You aren't apparently intelligent enough to follow these conversations, in many ways, you're even more stupid than either duh-Raz'r or Randumb because you can't even think of a line of insults that doesn't follow their lead. Simpletons like you turn into crackheads because you simply do what everyone else under the bridge does so you can find someone who resembles a role-model.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Someday you might develop the maturity to actually follow the conversation, instead of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with your ill-defined anti-morals is in fact on the wrong path.

And someday you'll walk into a room without the assumption you're  the smartest person there.  I hope you are putting some psychiatrists kid through an Ivy League school.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Mike doesn’t like to read, apparently. 

Nothing new. He couldn’t be bothered to read about the public safety exception to the fourth amendment after the Boston Marathon bombing. In the immortal words of the Rev. Jimmy Lee Farnsworth, “Those with perfect faith hath no need for perfect vision.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

Someday you might develop the maturity to actually follow the conversation, instead of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with your ill-defined anti-morals is in fact on the wrong path.

But I'm not sure that will ever actually happen. You aren't apparently intelligent enough to follow these conversations, in many ways, you're even more stupid than either duh-Raz'r or Randumb because you can't even think of a line of insults that doesn't follow their lead. Simpletons like you turn into crackheads because you simply do what everyone else under the bridge does so you can find someone who resembles a role-model.

Gasbaggery.  Please stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Nothing new. He couldn’t be bothered to read about the public safety exception to the fourth amendment after the Boston Marathon bombing. In the immortal words of the Rev. Jimmy Lee Farnsworth, “Those with perfect faith hath no need for perfect vision.”

Exigent circumstances are to prevent harm to the homeowner or the officers. If the harm is to the public, then they wouldn't need to do warrantless searches, would they?

And sure enough, they found that particular terrorist hiding outside, under a boat cover, if memory serves. So your willingness to shitcan the Bill of Rights didn't even help in that case, and arguably made the search take even longer, which put the public in even greater danger, because instead of respecting the homeowners, and focusing their search outdoors, they wasted all that time and effort doing warrantless searches.

Rights are often the first things to go in times of fear. However your desire to rewrite history, is noted, as usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Exigent circumstances are to prevent harm to the homeowner or the officers. If the harm is to the public, then they wouldn't need to do warrantless searches, would they?

And sure enough, they found that particular terrorist hiding outside, under a boat cover, if memory serves. So your willingness to shitcan the Bill of Rights didn't even help in that case, and arguably made the search take even longer, which put the public in even greater danger, because instead of respecting the homeowners, and focusing their search outdoors, they wasted all that time and effort doing warrantless searches.

Rights are often the first things to go in times of fear. However your desire to rewrite history, is noted, as usual.

sure thing counselor.

61HSi8zu+qL._SL1001_.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The new Google Expert gives spotty results.  Not worth the time arguing with someone who wants to get you to spend as much of yours as possible. 

At least with the balloon bozo there's the satisfaction of a "toot" when hit squarely on the note. With Mikey? Notsomuch. Maybe a day of blank forum pages while he goes off and licks his wounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The new Google Expert gives spotty results.  Not worth the time arguing with someone who wants to get you to spend as much of yours as possible. 

Given the massive amount of debris you post here, there is no way I could mathematically influence the quantity of your posts to even the third decimal place.

It's easy for you to post like runaway diarrhea because you have nothing to actually say, you just surf from one wave of shit to the next. You're the ideological equivalent of a marshmallow fluff sandwich.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Mikey accusing others of “runaway posting diarrhea”?  
That’s rich...

Bozo’s back

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2021 at 11:12 AM, mikewof said:

Are you certain about that?

Yes, I'm certain.  

In the United States, a person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Libel

On 2/11/2021 at 11:12 AM, mikewof said:

Also, what is the public figure status of the voting machines company?

Would be difficult-to-impossible to argue Dominion & Smartmatic are NOT public figures.  They will almost certainly have to meet the higher standard.

I'll be surprised, honestly, if they bother trying to argue they're not Public Figures. 

On 2/11/2021 at 11:12 AM, mikewof said:

Do you think this will ever see a trial? I doubt it will.

Dominion & Smartmatic don't have a choice.  It's worth going bankrupt from legal bills, trying, since the alternative is to go bankrupt anyways. Might as well go down fighting...

I don't know who Smartmatic hired, but it's worth noting that Dominion hired Tom Clare.  That guy's not hurting for work, he's one of the top litigators in this field. His participation makes me suspect Dominion has a decent case.  If it was a pointless, bound-to-lose case, he would have passed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

Yes, I'm certain.  

In the United States, a person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Libel

Would be difficult-to-impossible to argue Dominion & Smartmatic are NOT public figures.  They will almost certainly have to meet the higher standard.

I'll be surprised, honestly, if they bother trying to argue they're not Public Figures. 

Dominion & Smartmatic don't have a choice.  It's worth going bankrupt from legal bills, trying, since the alternative is to go bankrupt anyways. Might as well go down fighting...

I don't know who Smartmatic hired, but it's worth noting that Dominion hired Tom Clare.  That guy's not hurting for work, he's one of the top litigators in this field. His participation makes me suspect Dominion has a decent case.  If it was a pointless, bound-to-lose case, he would have passed. 

  Dominion may not be funding this case. Clare has already won a bunch of multi-million dollar cases, he's got a team and $$. He may have taken this on contingency.  A third of the award, whatever that may be. Not that Sidney is a real deep pocket, but winning this would be a publicity coup...and a mounted Kraken-head in the reception area of the office? Priceless!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2021 at 5:25 AM, roundthebuoys said:

A $2.7B lawsuit against very powerful companies and specific people vs. some dude who builds folding canoes.  An apparently ex-reporter who is also an election expert, scientist and pandemic expert, all on a sailing website and who most people ignore.  Also an expert on blockchain and impeachment law. 

 

I'll go with Dominion's lawyers.

You missed out Solar and desalination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

Yes, I'm certain.  

In the United States, a person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Libel

Would be difficult-to-impossible to argue Dominion & Smartmatic are NOT public figures.  They will almost certainly have to meet the higher standard.

I'll be surprised, honestly, if they bother trying to argue they're not Public Figures. 

Dominion & Smartmatic don't have a choice.  It's worth going bankrupt from legal bills, trying, since the alternative is to go bankrupt anyways. Might as well go down fighting...

I don't know who Smartmatic hired, but it's worth noting that Dominion hired Tom Clare.  That guy's not hurting for work, he's one of the top litigators in this field. His participation makes me suspect Dominion has a decent case.  If it was a pointless, bound-to-lose case, he would have passed. 

Okay, so you seem to agree that they're public figures. We have that threshold.

Again, I heard the verbal diarrhea from Giuliani, I'm not at all curious about his status in this. But Fox Media, I'm very curious about them. As I wrote before, I don't watch Fox News, so I have no idea of how they fit into this. But I keep asking to see a clip from Fox News which shows their potential defamation here, and nobody has anything. I've looked through YouTube, and it's kind of gross, like walking into a peep show ... I couldn't do that for too long. What I did see though on the election machines was what looked like reasonably protected media. Their opinion pieces didn't necessarily reflect the opinions of the ownership, and their guests weren't indicative of Fox Media's opinions and policies.

So do you know, over what is Fox actually being sued here? You write that Tom Clare took the case because he was sure it couldn't lose, but couldn't he also take it because Fox is some 20x the size of Smartmatic or Dominion, and he might benefit from this never seeing trial?

My interest here isn't the voting machine companies, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. But rather I'm interested as a former journalist. Can a media company be effectively sued because of what their guests and opinionators say? I always thought the answer was "nearly impossible." But incredibly enough, that discussion has yet to come up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikewof said:

It's amusing how you're arguing FOR the very rights incursion that went down in flames.

Mike, you lost me years ago with the word centrifugal force.  Academics agree it doesn't exist.  I got laid last week and she wants me to move in, how are you doing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Mike, you lost me years ago with the word centrifugal force.  Academics agree it doesn't exist.  I got laid last week and she wants me to move in, how are you doing?

I didn't write, that, it was a quote from a non-scientist about something that had nothing do with science, but rather politics, so who cares if his definition is correct? He may have even done it deliberately as a literary device. Don't know, don't care.

The centrifugal versus centripetal is one of the biggest canards for pop-science pseudo expertise. Physicists just tend to view "centrifugal" as the wrong label for "centripetal" and we leave it at that. But non-scientists -- for some inexplicable reason -- latch onto that as some kind of connection to the world of correct science.

Ultimately, F=m dv/dt,, and for rotational systems, we just parameterize to F = m V^2/r. That's correct, that form will move mountains. If a student mistakenly calls that "centrifugal" instead of "centripetal" but they get the formula, right, I doubt that one instructor out a hundred would take off even a single point. Non-physicists though, they start jumping around like a pine-cone rolled up their butt. Maybe the enforcement of language gives them a kind of scientific credibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mikewof said:

can a media company be effectively sued because of what their guests and opinionators say? I always thought the answer was "nearly impossible." But incredibly enough, that discussion has yet to come up.

That’s because it is not a discussion. As usual, you have the very basic and simple facts wrong. Whether it is the host or guest who utters defamatory content is completely irrelevant to the analysis of whether the person re-publishing the defamatory statement has liability therefore. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who are not immune to learning, this law review article has a good explanation of the existing state of jurisprudence on liability for third party statements. 
 

download

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

That’s because it is not a discussion. As usual, you have the very basic and simple facts wrong. Whether it is the host or guest who utters defamatory content is completely irrelevant to the analysis of whether the person re-publishing the defamatory statement has liability therefore. 
 

Fox is getting sued.

I asked for an example of what they published that is defamatory. So far, all I could find was a Fox reporter being a sufficiently good reporter, in my opinion.

So do you have an example, perhaps in the form of a YouTube video, that shows them doing what they are being sued over? What you wrote in bold up there is pretty vague. So since you claim to have expertise in this area, why by elusive? Why not just explain with an example?

As an amateur journalist, you should perhaps understand my curiosity here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mathystuff said:

We're just making fun of you mikey, because you spam PAGES of blah whenever you think someone is wrong.

Noone here cares whether it's centrisomething force.

As I wrote, I don't care either about "centrisomething." As for what I write, if you don't like to read, don't read. I'm not sticking toothpicks in your eyelids and Clockwork Oranging you, am I?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

For those of you who are not immune to learning, this law review article has a good explanation of the existing state of jurisprudence on liability for third party statements. 
 

download

I think that an expert should be able to distill an idea into their own words, and even a non-expert should be able to make a link work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

Okay, so you seem to agree that they're public figures. We have that threshold.

Again, I heard the verbal diarrhea from Giuliani, I'm not at all curious about his status in this. But Fox Media, I'm very curious about them. As I wrote before, I don't watch Fox News, so I have no idea of how they fit into this. But I keep asking to see a clip from Fox News which shows their potential defamation here, and nobody has anything. I've looked through YouTube, and it's kind of gross, like walking into a peep show ... I couldn't do that for too long. What I did see though on the election machines was what looked like reasonably protected media. Their opinion pieces didn't necessarily reflect the opinions of the ownership, and their guests weren't indicative of Fox Media's opinions and policies.

So do you know, over what is Fox actually being sued here? You write that Tom Clare took the case because he was sure it couldn't lose, but couldn't he also take it because Fox is some 20x the size of Smartmatic or Dominion, and he might benefit from this never seeing trial?

My interest here isn't the voting machine companies, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. But rather I'm interested as a former journalist. Can a media company be effectively sued because of what their guests and opinionators say? I always thought the answer was "nearly impossible." But incredibly enough, that discussion has yet to come up.

 Why do you ask us to do your homework for you? You’ve got the big brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikewof said:

So do you know, over what is Fox actually being sued here? You write that Tom Clare took the case because he was sure it couldn't lose, but couldn't he also take it because Fox is some 20x the size of Smartmatic or Dominion, and he might benefit from this never seeing trial?

Clare is Dominion's lawyer, not Smartmatic's.  Dominion has not sued Fox (not yet, anyways).  I' dunno who's representing Smartmatic, and I'm too lazy to look it up ATM.   

 

9 hours ago, mikewof said:

Can a media company be effectively sued because of what their guests and opinionators say? I always thought the answer was "nearly impossible." But incredibly enough, that discussion has yet to come up.

If you'd bothered reading Clare's bio, when I linked it upthread, you'd know different. 

But then, what would Clean do for entertainment?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

Clare is Dominion's lawyer, not Smartmatic's.  Dominion has not sued Fox (not yet, anyways).  I' dunno who's representing Smartmatic, and I'm too lazy to look it up ATM.   

 

If you'd bothered reading Clare's bio, when I linked it upthread, you'd know different. 

But then, what would Clean do for entertainment?

 

With Clare, do you mean the Rolling Stone suit? I think that's not the same thing. The Rolling Stone is a journal, and by publishing an article by one of their journalists, there is an assumption that the journal stands behind it. A newspaper, on the other hand, can interview all manner of wackadoos, and as long as the reporter maintains sufficient clarity of distance between the vehicle and the subject of the interview, I think they're clear. As for guys like Lou Dobbs, I don't know if his shitcanning had anything to do with this, but like the Op-Ed pages and Editorial sections of a newspaper, there is again a separation between the journal and the editor/opinionator, I think they also have some protection.

Where the newspaper can get into trouble is when a reporter submits a story that is defamatory, and the newspaper doesn't create a sufficiently clear barrier between the paper and the reporter. They don't necessarily need to add the disclaimer each time, as long as it's clear that the offensive opinion isn't OF the publisher.

There may have been more recent developments here, I did write for a major international daily newspaper many decades ago, and our training in defamation was extensive. I've probably forgotten nearly as much as I learned, but I think the above is about the core of it.

Again, it would help if someone had a clip of an offending piece of Fox so we could get an idea of what Smartmatic's suit and Dominion's sabre-rattling is actually all about. It's obviously difficult to discuss this stuff entirely in the theoretical. Regardless our opinions about Fox Media, the reality here is that they're nearly a $30 billion/year company, and compared to the $2 billion/year Dow Jones that used to police for defamation like bulldogs, I can't believe that Fox wouldn't be at least as careful about that stuff as Dow Jones, where we had a specific process and workflow to manage potential defamation. It would have been like a swimming pool at a community center that suddenly had no lifeguards with a pool full of children ... it just didn't happen, everything that hit that the press had eyes on it.

One thing I remember, one reporter was threatened with a defamation suit, she had made tape recordings of the interviews, but the subject claimed that he didn't say some things about the company. The reporter was sure that she was in the clear, she had recordings. But it turns out the recordings put her in more trouble than if she didn't have them. With the recordings, she had to run through all the recording and account for all conversations. If she hadn't taken recordings -- as most of the reporters didn't -- she would have been in the clear just by responding with something like "the quotes sufficiently reflected the tone and facts of the conversations." I think that the newspaper couldn't defend her, she had to hire her own counsel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mikewof said:

So far, all I could find was a Fox reporter being a sufficiently good reporter, in my opinion.

giphy.gif

Mikeythreequotes.thumb.jpg.f6832955ccb583566585bfb3a318b218.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikewof said:

I did write for a major international daily newspaper many decades ago, and our training in defamation was extensive. I've probably forgotten nearly as much as I learned, but I think the above is about the core of it.

 

LOLZ

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mikewof said:

With Clare, do you mean the Rolling Stone suit? I think that's not the same thing. The Rolling Stone is a journal, and by publishing an article by one of their journalists, there is an assumption that the journal stands behind it. A newspaper, on the other hand, can interview all manner of wackadoos, and as long as the reporter maintains sufficient clarity of distance between the vehicle and the subject of the interview, I think they're clear. As for guys like Lou Dobbs, I don't know if his shitcanning had anything to do with this, but like the Op-Ed pages and Editorial sections of a newspaper, there is again a separation between the journal and the editor/opinionator, I think they also have some protection.

Where the newspaper can get into trouble is when a reporter submits a story that is defamatory, and the newspaper doesn't create a sufficiently clear barrier between the paper and the reporter. They don't necessarily need to add the disclaimer each time, as long as it's clear that the offensive opinion isn't OF the publisher.

So, if the reporters don't maintain "sufficient clarity of distance", and/or the paper doesn't "create a sufficiently clear barrier"... then what? 

Pretty sure the argument is that they didn't.

Quote

Again, it would help if someone had a clip of an offending piece of Fox so we could get an idea of what Smartmatic's suit and Dominion's sabre-rattling is actually all about.

https://www.scribd.com/document/493369811/Smartmatic-Complaint-Against-Fox-Corporation

Causes of Action (specific examples) starts at page 239. 

Well  -  sort of.  (The text often refers back to earlier passages, for the actual specifics.  You'll be hopping around a fair bit).

There's also an argument about Journalistic Standards that you might find interesting; starts on page 215.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, frenchie said:

So, if the reporters don't maintain "sufficient clarity of distance", and/or the paper doesn't "create a sufficiently clear barrier"... then what? 

Pretty sure the argument is that they didn't.

https://www.scribd.com/document/493369811/Smartmatic-Complaint-Against-Fox-Corporation

Causes of Action (specific examples) starts at page 239. 

Well  -  sort of.  (The text often refers back to earlier passages, for the actual specifics.  You'll be hopping around a fair bit).

There's also an argument about Journalistic Standards that you might find interesting; starts on page 215.

 

Ya did Mikeys homework for him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites