Could Fox News Be Held Liable for Tucker Carlson?

[babylonsister]

https://politicalwire.com/2021/07/23/could-fox-news-be-held-liable-for-tucker-carlson/

Could Fox News Be Held Liable for Tucker Carlson?
July 23, 2021 at 2:00 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard

John Culhane: “Although the network has recently sounded a more responsible note, that turnabout has by no means been across the entire network and it comes too late for an untold number of people who have been newly sickened or died from the disease, and who might have been saved through immunization.”

“There may actually be some legal remedy, though, for the damage wrought by the network. COVID victims who were taken in by Carlson’s vaccination misinformation, or their estates, may be able to sue Fox News under the ancient common law theory of fraud. They would have a reasonably good chance of success, too.”

[True Blue American]

1. I hope a Class Action

Suit is filed against them. They need to be held accountable for the many deaths they have caused!

[bucolic_frolic]

2. common law theory of fraud

That's it in a nutshell. We limit, regulate, hinder, control, outlaw other types of fraud. Financial and accounting fraud, product liability fraud, medical fraud. I've been saying this for months. There's no reason fraud must be tolerated under free speech. It's not a civil rights issue, it's tangible, measurable harm caused by deceit and lies. That it's political makes no difference. We put the truth-o-meter to speeches and debates. And I do not understand why the FCC can't be drawn into this solution. The airwaves are public, they are leased or sold to media for specified periods of time and purpose. They serve the public interest, or so they say. We don't auction off air time to perpetuate frauds.

[Lars39]

3. Cable shows wouldn't fall under

Fairness Doctrine.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. I doubt the fairness doctrine is needed to prosecute fraud

Its removal may seem like a license to lie, but its removal didn't make fraud legal.

[-misanthroptimist]

4. I agree

Another thing I wonder about is if political lies, particularly campaign lies, also constitute fraud. Such lies are told in an effort to get votes. The entire reason for the campaign, after all, is to get votes. Campaigns cost money, therefore, each vote has some monetary value. Obtaining those votes, therefore, is an attempt to defraud people out of something of value. IANAL, so that's my semi-opinion/thought process.

Of course, fund raising lies should constitute fraud. The money-lie connection is less complex.

It is my opinion that any dishonesty in politics should be rooted out to the best of our ability. Lies are theft. Lies are poison to a democracy.

[Captain Stern]

5. Fox News isn't broadcast over the public airwaves.

Cable and Internet only.

Even if somone wants to, they can't pick up Fox News with an antenna.

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Does that lessen the fraud?

Fraud in private contracts is no less fraudulent.

[Captain Stern]

23. I don't know. I was just addressing your FCC part.

What you said was entirely incorrect.

Was that fraud?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

16. Faux doesn't broadcast over the air,

they're on cable, so no use of the public airways and the FCC has no content regulatory powers over cable, satellite or internet.

[bucolic_frolic]

19. Why do you need the FCC?

If it effects the public, it's a potential public fraud. It's a marketplace of ideas that effect the public. Just because it's contractual doesn't mean you can hide it as a matter of free speech. There's no NDA involved, people view it every day.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

20. You're the one that posted this:

And I do not understand why the FCC can't be drawn into this solution. The airwaves are public, they are leased or sold to media for specified periods of time and purpose. They serve the public interest, or so they say. We don't auction off air time to perpetuate frauds.

I was just informing you that the FCC has no regulatory power over Faux because they don't use the public airways.

[ariadne0614]

7. We can all file a complaint to the FTC.

According to Dean Obeidallah, Fox is in violation of the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act, which went into effect December 2020.
(snip)
"That’s why I filed a complaint this week with the Federal Trade Commission against Fox News for possible violations of the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act. That law, enacted in December 2020, makes it “unlawful” for a corporation or individual “to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID–19.” My goal in filing this case is to prompt the agency to investigate and bring an end to the apparently deceptive information Fox News has been selling to the consumers of its channel.


https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/fox-news-covid-vaccine-denials-can-t-go-unpunished-n1274548?icid=msd_botgrid

[2naSalit]

9. +1

[Tadpole Raisin]

11. + 1 million (to the nth power)

[onenote]

8. A common law fraud claim against Fox would lose.

Common law fraud cases are hard to win. One reason: an element of common law fraud is "reasonable" or "justifiable" reliance. This means that a plaintiff is not justified in relying on representations when he or she had ample opportunity to ascertain the truth of the representations through the exercise of ordinary prudence.

[ancianita]

15. Yes. It would.

Not a lawyer, but I realize that only when the public has no other news channel choices is fraud possibly prosecutable, along with what you said about relying on representations without exercising ordinary prudence.

The gullible can be duped, but their position as consumer doesn't force them to be duped, so they are as responsible for whatever messengers they choose to listen to as the messengers are responsible for the message.

[Marcuse]

10. Courts have ruled that Tucker is unbelievable so no foul, no harm.

He has a license to lie.

[Escurumbele]

12. Both need to be accountable for the misinformation, and Carlson should be indicted for

driving people to become infected and some die from the virus.

I have said it many times in DU, that is how Charles Manson was sent to jail for life, he did not physically commit the murders, but he was the mastermind behind the killings. Carlson has been the mastermind of the misinformation that has caused many people to become infected and some to loose their lives. I cannot see how that is not murder.

Vincent Bugliosi in "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" used the "The Doctrine of innocent agent...allows a defendant not present at the commission of the crime (killings in Iraq) to be convicted as a principal in the first degree if the defendant engaged in actions which caused the actual perpetrator to commit the crime as an innocent agent of the defendant."

I am not a lawyer, but it sounds to me that Carlson's actions can be framed in the same way, as he incited people to avoid the vaccine which caused injury and death.

A lawyer here in DU can explain if this is a valid point, or not.

[cab67]

14. Not a lawyer, BUT -

I can see a big difference between Manson and Carlson in this line of reasoning.

Manson was issuing instructions to specific people by name. That's not what Carlson is doing - he's making comments on a cable network to no-one in particular.

I agree that there's a moral equivalence, but the details probably eliminate any legal equivalence.

That would be my guess, anyway.

[Escurumbele]

22. Its a good guess, you may be correct.

I guess we still need a lawyer to answer it, but what you are saying makes sense.

[YoshidaYui]

13. Sue their pants off

Litigate litigate litigate!!!!

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

18. Most likely...

a strong, well organized, worldwide campaign against the sponsors of Fox would be the most effective method.

This would take a lot of time, however.

[BlueWavePsych]

21. Accessory to negligent homicide?