The legal standard that companies like Dominion must meet to prove defamation is known as actual bad faith. And because of a 1964 Supreme Court ruling, it is very difficult to prove. The New York Times v. Sullivanthat a public official can claim defamation only if he can prove that the defendant knew he was making a false statement or was reckless in deciding to publish the defamation statement. judged.
Weisman added, “There are many cases where lying goes unpunished, but here are real victims.” “It just so happened that they actually attacked the company.”
Defendants in defamation cases are usually held in high esteem by media attorneys and First Amendment scholars. They argue that the law should give leeway for the media to make mistakes, even if they are serious, unless they are unintentional.
However, many legal scholars believe there is sufficient evidence to support Dominion’s lawsuit, claiming it was deliberately tarnished by lies broadcast by Fox, and would be surprised if a jury didn’t find out. Fox is liable for defamation.
John Culhane, a law professor at Widener University Delaware School of Law, said, “If this case goes wrong, it’s about as strong as the case you’re doing, so from my point of view, It’s clearly going to be a gross mistake. It’s defamatory.” Culhane added that Fox’s win would only make it harder to curb the kinds of misinformation that are rampant in the pro-Trump media.
“I think it encourages them even more,” he said.
This incident proved to be anomalous on many levels. It’s not just that prosecutors like Weisman could deliver the kind of sentences that have so far missed. He believes he has bent Americans.The democratic system has reached its breaking point.
David Logan, a law professor and defamation expert at the Roger Williams School of Law, said, “Even if this had nothing to do with Donald Trump and Fox and the riots, this is a unique honor. It’s a defamation lawsuit and it’s completely stopped.”There’s never been anything like this before.”
Leave a Reply