Fox argued that a case alleging that a commentary by Tucker Carlson defamed Karen McDougal by asserting she had "attempted to extort" should be dismissed because, read in context, his statements were constitutionally protected opinion commentary on matters of public importance and are not reasonably understood as being factual. The court agreed 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..."
In other words, it was a narrow argument resulting in a narrow ruling applicable specifically to Carlson. Fox did not, and has not, argued that they are "not a news network." Indeed, the decision wasn't particularly controversial -- MSNBC made a similar argument in successfully defending a case brought by One America News claiming it had been defamed by Rachel Maddow stating that OANNwas "really literally is paid Russian propaganda." The judge -- an Obama appointee -- ruled that Maddow's statement "is an opinion that cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim," and thus is protected under the First Amendment, adding that for Maddow to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda "was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context."
= new reply since forum marked as read