“So? Every news network in the world puts on crazy people who make ridiculous accusations. It’s still not the responsibility of the network for what crazy people say.
If we are going to play the game that way, all the other networks should be bankrupted after all the lies they have promulgated by allowing their platforms to be exploited by vicious liars.
We cannot have two standards of justice in this nation.”
As a point of law, if you broadcast/publish a claim or accusation that you know is untrue, or if your broadcast/publication ignores whether or not the claim/accusation is untrue, then you are as liable for defamation as the person making the accusation.
I don’t disagree that the media publishes/broadcasts “ridiculous accusations” on a regular basis. One way that a media outlet can show that they have any regard for the veracity of such accusations is for the outlet to offer the party being accused the opportunity to comment—and to publish/broadcast those official comments. We did not see that happen in this case.
It is also also my opinion that Fox is not the only media outlet that has ever shown a disregard for whether or not a “ridiculous accusation” is true.
So in all those other instances of making “ridiculous claims,” what you need is a plaintiff. The question isn’t whether or there is a double standard of justice. It’s about whether or not you have a plaintiff.
Remember, this is not a criminal trial. It’s a civil suit and as such someone has to be willing to be a plaintiff. Plaintiffs have to deal what the discovery process will reveal. This is probably why so few defamation suits succeed, and why so few people are willing to be a plaintiff in a defamation case.
...unless you are part of the lie spreading system controlled by the media/government cartel.
You need to be accurate in your understanding of how the law actually works.
I don’t disagree that the media publishes/broadcasts “ridiculous accusations” on a regular basis. One way that a media outlet can show that they have any regard for the veracity of such accusations is for the outlet to offer the party being accused the opportunity to comment—and to publish/broadcast those official comments. We did not see that happen in this case.
I am a big advocate of equal time. In fact, I think every single "news" broadcasting network should be required to provide equal time for all their political opposition. For every minute of their coverage, they should give the opposition party the same minute during the same broadcast.
It would clean up a lot of problems in this nation. They wouldn't be able to get away with the lying they do.
I see this as a possibly valid point. Fox should have offered Dominion the same time to refute any allegations against them. If they didn't, it seems like a boneheaded move in retrospect.
So in all those other instances of making “ridiculous claims,” what you need is a plaintiff. The question isn’t whether or there is a double standard of justice. It’s about whether or not you have a plaintiff.
If you clearly cannot get equal justice, you will never get a plaintiff because nobody is foolish enough to waste huge sums of money on a case in a tainted jury pool. The very idea is ridiculous.
Remember, this is not a criminal trial. It’s a civil suit and as such someone has to be willing to be a plaintiff. Plaintiffs have to deal what the discovery process will reveal. This is probably why so few defamation suits succeed, and why so few people are willing to be a plaintiff in a defamation case.
I am reminded of the case between Apple and Samsung The only thing I needed to know to determine who was going to win was where the case would be tried.
It was tried in Silicon Valley. Guess who won?
Where would the media liars be sued? Manhattan? Give it up. Not going to happen.