d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > 1.6b Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox To Go Ahead
Prev1345679Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 25,139
Joined: Dec 20 2006
Gold: 82,014.68
Warn: 10%
Jun 22 2022 08:25pm
Quote (sirthom @ Jun 22 2022 06:53pm)
They live life like they are in GTA5.
Can do anything you want.
Go anywhere.
Steal stuff.
Shoot people.
Have an offshore sub.
etc, etc.

Sure the cop might chase you initially.
But if can evade that, it's like it never happened.
Never any consequences for anything you do.



need hellcat:

Member
Posts: 25,139
Joined: Dec 20 2006
Gold: 82,014.68
Warn: 10%
Jun 22 2022 08:55pm
Quote (sirthom @ Jun 22 2022 07:21pm)
Unfortunately, not any more and haven't in a long time.



IOT's poster children are calling you:


Make sure they dont get coronaried in the chest.
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
Jun 22 2022 09:14pm
Quote (theCrossbones @ 22 Jun 2022 19:15)
I have a feeling the whole thing will get dropped given the nature of the CNN/FOX/OAN/MSNBC being for entertainment. I don't think they owe any responsibility for accurate 'news'casts


My prediction is that Powell will lose the defamation case. My guess is the case against Fox will end up going nowhere based on the lack of evidence. Naturally, I go to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc. for news about this, as coverage from Fox is clearly just listening to the defendant. And so far, I haven't seen any damning evidence of Fox or it's employees agreeing with or validating any claims against Dominion. Merely allowing both sides to air their story. Again, I don't see evidence that would provide a basis for the suit against Fox at all.

The only claim that would lead to that would be that simply allowing a person to speak off script is an active endorsement. And that would be a violation of a lot of statute, precedent, AND the First Amendment. As it turns out, if somebody says something that either violates law, or defames a third party to an interviewer, only the person who made the statement is at fault.

Again though, I don't watch Fox News or have the Fox News Channel (no cable). I catch some stories on their website, and catch some videos, so it's possible the evidence exists. I just haven't seen it, and I can't find it on any of the Anti-Fox networks, which leads me to believe it simply doesn't exist.

That all said, I don't think this is an "entertainment" question that has been applied to some of the pundits (Maddow from MSNBC, Carlson from Fox, etc.) unless the claim of fact comes from the host/interviewer/reporter themselves. Nor do I think the case is about that. I think this is an attempt at a guilt by association slap. AKA "You will not interview the other side and allow them to tell their side of the story, or we will sue you into non-existence." By my very nature, I sincerely hope they fail. If you don't know the various sides of the story, you don't know the story. And every time Powell spoke or wrote, that story seemed more and more unbacked bullshit. It took all of 3 interviews with Powell by Fox News for the overwhelming majority of Republicans to disavow Powell entirely. I'm not a Republican, but I have seen the video, and I'll bow to their expertise. Had Fox's interviews with Powell not occurred, there might be some level of doubt regarding the accuracy of the argument.

As it turns out, the search for the truth usually uncovers the lies, unless all information outside an approved narrative is denied to you. In which case there is no truth, merely narrative. :)
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Jun 22 2022 09:17pm
This is a good thing. We need more legal clarity on what is/isn't defamation.
Member
Posts: 49,893
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 3.88
Jun 22 2022 09:19pm
Quote (addone @ Jun 23 2022 11:45am)
your favourite sheep didn't put out this week? Why so upset comrade


Anyone who is not upset about what murdoch does is not a) a functioning human and b ) a supporter of democracy.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jun 22 2022 09:19pm
Member
Posts: 23,970
Joined: Feb 28 2007
Gold: 35,554.14
Warn: 10%
Jun 22 2022 09:26pm
Quote (Plaguefear @ Jun 22 2022 10:19pm)
Anyone who is not upset about what murdoch does is not a) a functioning human and b ) a supporter of democracy.


Good thing we live in a republic.
Member
Posts: 49,893
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 3.88
Jun 22 2022 09:32pm
Quote (sirthom @ Jun 23 2022 01:26pm)
Good thing we live in a republic.


A democratic republic according to your founders but i know none of you care about that that's why you clung to your guns and pretended they would stop you becoming an oligarchy and never even realised it happened.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jun 22 2022 09:34pm
Member
Posts: 23,970
Joined: Feb 28 2007
Gold: 35,554.14
Warn: 10%
Jun 22 2022 09:34pm
Quote (Plaguefear @ Jun 22 2022 10:32pm)
A democratic republic according to your constitution but i know none of you care about that that's why you clung to your guns and pretended they would stop you becoming an oligarchy and never even realised it happened.


No, I realize it.
Thats why I want my guns.

But do you know why a republic is different?
Member
Posts: 49,893
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 3.88
Jun 22 2022 09:36pm
Quote (sirthom @ Jun 23 2022 01:34pm)
No, I realize it.
Thats why I want my guns.

But do you know why a republic is different?


It isn't, they just want you to think it is.
And your guns are useless still.
Member
Posts: 23,970
Joined: Feb 28 2007
Gold: 35,554.14
Warn: 10%
Jun 22 2022 09:37pm
Quote (Plaguefear @ Jun 22 2022 10:36pm)
It isn't, they just want you to think it is.
And your guns are useless still.


Wrong on all counts.
Thats one way to get a 100% I guess.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1345679Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll