Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: As we hear the volume of right-wing calls for violence in "defense" of tfg, I don't believe it is [View all]
MarineCombatEngineer
(18,171 posts)5. That's not true at all
Fox News itself has never said they're entertainment, Fucker Carlson, in a case, claimed that, not Fox, even Rachael Maddow argued the same thing.
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-a-claim-that-fox-news?triedSigningIn=true
Fact Checking a Claim That Fox News Says Its Programming Is ‘Entertainment,’ Not News
The claim is misleading.
Popular Facebook page Occupy Democrats went viral with a post claiming that Fox News avoids lawsuits by claiming that “it's NOT real news, but rather ‘entertainment.’”
This post has a seed of truth to it: Fox News host Tucker Carlson was sued for slander in 2020 by Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who sold the rights of the story of her affair with Donald Trump to the National Enquirer. Carlson claimed that McDougal attempted to extort money from Trump—though she never asked Trump for money or even approached him. McDougal sued, and in response Fox’s legal team argued that his comments “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts.”
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil—district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—heard the case and agreed, finding that “given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes” and that “this overheated rhetoric is precisely the kind of pitched commentary that one expects when tuning in to talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight, with pundits debating the latest political controversies.”
“The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation,” wrote Vyskocil in her ruling.
Carlson isn’t the only opinion show host to win a lawsuit with such a defense: David Folkenflik of NPR noted that Rachel Maddow’s lawyers used a similar argument to convince a judge to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought by One America News Network. The judge ruled that Maddow’s comments about an OANN reporter being “on the payroll for the Kremlin” could reasonably be understood to be opinion.
This post has a seed of truth to it: Fox News host Tucker Carlson was sued for slander in 2020 by Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who sold the rights of the story of her affair with Donald Trump to the National Enquirer. Carlson claimed that McDougal attempted to extort money from Trump—though she never asked Trump for money or even approached him. McDougal sued, and in response Fox’s legal team argued that his comments “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts.”
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil—district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—heard the case and agreed, finding that “given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes” and that “this overheated rhetoric is precisely the kind of pitched commentary that one expects when tuning in to talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight, with pundits debating the latest political controversies.”
“The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation,” wrote Vyskocil in her ruling.
Carlson isn’t the only opinion show host to win a lawsuit with such a defense: David Folkenflik of NPR noted that Rachel Maddow’s lawyers used a similar argument to convince a judge to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought by One America News Network. The judge ruled that Maddow’s comments about an OANN reporter being “on the payroll for the Kremlin” could reasonably be understood to be opinion.
Regardless of that, how do you think the RW SCOTUS would rule? Or for that matter, any Court in the land?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
58 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
As we hear the volume of right-wing calls for violence in "defense" of tfg, I don't believe it is [View all]
Atticus
Aug 2022
OP
That's nice for you. No one is suggesting any curtailment of their right to say anything.
Scrivener7
Aug 2022
#8
Yes, but just to be clear, if your position is that this would violate the 1A and
Scrivener7
Aug 2022
#10
Yes, just terrible. Because there is no way we could ever set it up to prevent that.
Scrivener7
Aug 2022
#16
"We never had anything like, say, a fairness doctrine, that worked reasonably well"
brooklynite
Aug 2022
#19
The hard right has never been so close to achieving dominating power in the government as they
hadEnuf
Aug 2022
#40
Perhaps a House Un-American Activities Committee? That worked well the last time.
brooklynite
Aug 2022
#33
Or perhaps a "There are fine people on both sides" committee so we don't offend
Atticus
Aug 2022
#37
Because it gives the next Republican President the ability to tag opposition as "domestic terrorism"
brooklynite
Aug 2022
#42
I thought "We don't have a domestic terrorism crisis---" was just misguided, but then you
Atticus
Aug 2022
#50