You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers
This is prob. old news to a lot of you. But I somehow missed this. Boat Shoe In Human Form Tucker Swanson's show is straight up fiction..... as admitted by is own lawyers.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
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."
= new reply since forum marked as read
to the audience, none of whom will know Carlson or his reputation.
And, is the judge naive enough to believe Fox's long-term viewers know he's lying at every breath? To most of them, he has a stellar reputation.
This lady ain't right........
of experience on the federal bench and none of her over 1000 decisions in bankruptcy court (before this appointment) had been reversed. (I checked.) Quite a record there.
Whether this decision on a slander case is unreasonably biased, instead of judicially and intellectually appropriate, I truly don't know. I need someone who does to tell me. She's unquestionably conservative, but in my ignorance I could at least imagine a more liberal judge arriving at the same decision on the same or similar basis. Free speech protection.
So, I'm not supporting the decision in the slightest and a liberal judge might apply additional concepts. But, we know the one that Carlson's show is garbage is valid. And the argument that their viewers, adhering to the "reasonable person" standard, are supposed to know that is also valid.
As far as it goes. Is there a "rest" that should have been considered and what about it? Including do "reasonable people" watch Fox or is that presumed disqualifying? ( 
I didn't try to look any of that up.)
