I don't know how it would be carried out, but couldn't there be a cease and desist order

[Sogo]

against Fox "News" for inciting violence? or fomenting a coup? or interfering with official proceedings (elections)? or....

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. No.

[inthewind21]

2. SMH

[Chainfire]

3. There is nothing criminal about lying to the public.

As the Jan. 6 insurrectionists have found out, it is illegal to act on the lie.

The Civil courts may accomplish what the criminal courts can't.

[Karadeniz]

18. To me, it's voter fraud... defrauding the voting public.

[Chainfire]

19. The First Amendment is a double edged sword.

And we should tread very lightly in suggesting that it be blunted.

[Ocelot II]

4. No.

Brandenburg v. Ohio says the First Amendment protects any speech that doesn't meet the test of being intended to incite imminent lawless action. In other words, the incitement has to be specific and immediately meant to cause an unlawful act. What Fox does might be considered stochastic terrorism, but it lacks the specificity needed to take it outside the coverage of the First Amendment.

[lees1975]

8. But Trump's speech prior to the Trump Insurrection does indeed meet the test.

So why is he still walking around free, campaigning for a second term? He should be arrested, indicted, convicted and in jail by now.

[Zeitghost]

9. Not really

"We all know what he meant" is not a legal argument, at least not a successful one.

[Ocelot II]

11. The OP's question is about statements made by Fox News,

not about what TFG said before the 1/6 insurrection. A court or a jury will have to decide whether TFG's statements met the Brandenburg test, but Fox's don't. However, defamation is not not protected by the First Amendment, which is why Dominion is suing them and probably will win.

[Sogo]

12. Thank you for your detailed answer, as opposed

to the curt "no" answers from others. I was looking for the legal reasoning. Thank you.

[samnsara]

5. i think there should be a class action lawsuit

[Ocelot II]

6. Based on what legal theory?

[bluestarone]

14. I gotta ask one question here, if you would.

Why couldn't EVERYONE of the Jan 6th TRAITORS (that were imprisoned) sue FOX news? (i truly HATE these traitors, BUT would they have standing?)

[Ocelot II]

16. That would be a tough case, since the obvious defense would be

that they failed their due diligence, given that there were 60+ lawsuits before 1/6 that found there was no election fraud, and that every other news outlet provided the truth. They acted of their own volition and made no effort to determine what the truth was; they just assumed Fox was giving it to them. If I'm going to set out to invade the Capitol and hang the Vice President, I'm going to be damned sure I've got a solid factual basis for it first. Also, there's case law to the effect that news outlets don't have to tell the truth as long as they aren't defaming anyone. https://casetext.com/case/wash-league-for-increased-transparency-ethics-v-fox-news

[bluestarone]

17. TY!

I was thinking some of them were in contact with TFG, and his lawyers as well. (the groups that were so-called patriots)

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

7. No

N/t

[tritsofme]

10. No, there is no loophole to the First Amendment that will allow you to suppress speech

you don’t like.

[Sogo]

13. It's not that I just "don't like" it;

it's that it has caused real harm to other individuals who acted on their lies and real harm to our country and our form of government.

[canetoad]

15. I wonder if those

Injured, or the families of the dead have standing to sue. Would something similar to A.Jones and Sandy Hook apply here?