Defamation Suit About Election Falsehoods Puts Fox on Its Heels

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Maria Bartiromo, another host on the network, falsely stated that “Nancy Pelosi has an interest in this company.” Jeanine Pirro, a Fox News personality, speculated that “technical glitches” in Dominion’s software “could have affected thousands of absentee mail-in ballots.”


Those unfounded accusations are now among the dozens cited in Dominion’s defamation lawsuit against the Fox Corporation, which alleges that Fox repeatedly aired false, far-fetched and exaggerated allegations about Dominion and its purported role in a plot to steal votes from Mr. Trump.

Those bogus assertions — made day after day, including allegations that Dominion was a front for the communist government in Venezuela and that its voting machines could switch votes from one candidate to another — are at the center of the libel suit, one of the most extraordinary brought against an American media company in more than a generation.

First Amendment scholars say the case is a rarity in libel law. Defamation claims typically involve a single disputed statement. But Dominion’s complaint is replete with example after example of false statements, many of them made after the facts were widely known. And such suits are often quickly dismissed, because of the First Amendment’s broad free speech protections and the high-powered lawyers available to a major media company like Fox. If they do go forward, they are usually settled out of court to spare both sides the costly spectacle of a trial.

But Dominion’s $1.6 billion case against Fox has been steadily progressing in Delaware state court this summer, inching ever closer to trial. There have been no moves from either side toward a settlement, according to interviews with several people involved in the case. The two companies are deep into document discovery, combing through years of each other’s emails and text messages, and taking depositions.


 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I'd have to see more de facto proof that alterations were not made illegally. The software HAS the ability to adjust and edit outcomes, because it has to. I don't think *I* have ever written software that isn't able to be manipulated. Because reality doesn't follow your programs, and real data has a way of screwing up your output. You simply MUST insert the capability to fix something, when stuff goes wrong.

THAT - is where the case is probably going to meet difficulty, because unless it can be established that it CANNOT be used to change outcomes, they would have to prove that no one DID do it. And I don't think that's going to work. They can only make the case that the company didn't do that, and I'm not sure THAT has been said.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I don't see how Dominion can win this suit without opening it's machines to inspection, and I am sure Dominion is not likely to want that.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Why on earth would I care what some clickbait scam site has to say? And why would you post it, Gurps?
 
Top