Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Robby Soave: If Fox News LOSES the Dominion Lawsuit, Journalistic Freedom Could DIE" video.

  1.  @sliceoflife5812  None of this is relevant to the legal analysis. You're as bad as the people you are chiding.
    2
  2.  @jonm9538  Someone who was defamed has got to sue to do that.
    2
  3. It is VERY simple: It is news to report, accurately, what Trump, Pelosi, either Clinton, Fauci, Jeffrey Epstein have to say -- it is news if they are stating falsehoods, and it is bigger news if they are deliberately stating things they know to be false. It is news THAT they said what they said. Endorsing what any of these people said is a separate issue.
    1
  4. The issue is who to hold liable. Is it defamation to report on Trump's lawyer's false claims about Dominion voting machines? No. On the other hand, would it be defamation to endorse those false claims? Maybe. (Look up "New York Times malice." It is a term of art, having nothing to do with the colloquial definition of "malice.")
    1
  5. Who's lying? If I report that Trump states X and X is a lie, or that Trump's lawyers say X and X is a lie, did I just lie? If I report that the White House asserts that the Nordstream pipeline was destroyed by Russian agents, and that turns out to be false, did I lie? If I report that leaders of the DNC believe Trump was elected in 2016 because of Russian state interference in our election, and that turns out to be false, did I lie? Or did I accurately report what members of the DNC stated? Your final paragraph is just a new anti-free-speech slogan. Congrats, please do destroy the last good thing left. The Fourth Amendment is gone, the Fifth, almost gone, the Eighth . . . well, at least we don't execute people for what they did as minors. I guess that's something. Kalief Browder is not here to tell his side, however.
    1
  6. It is VERY simple: It is news to report, accurately, what Trump, Pelosi, either Clinton, Fauci, Jeffrey Epstein have to say -- it is news if they are stating falsehoods, and it is bigger news if they are deliberately stating things they know to be false. It is news THAT they said what they said.
    1
  7. I'm so glad that the First Amendment has been eviscerated. /s
    1
  8. No, he just said that reporting what a president's campaign states is not defamation, even if that campaign is lying through its teeth. Let's see what emerges at trial, in the way of real evidence that Fox also lied, rather than simply reporting the fact that the Trump campaign or its lawyers stated blah blah blah.
    1
  9. If Hillary Clinton believes Putin interfered in the 2016 presidential election, that is newsworthy, even if it turns out to be batsh-t crazy.
    1
  10. You're kidding, right?
    1
  11. The issue is who to hold liable. Is it defamation to report on Trump's lawyer's false claims about Dominion voting machines? No. That is simply newsworthy; it is newsworthy to report on what a president has to say, about any matter, even if he is lying. On the other hand, would it be defamation to endorse those false claims? It could be. (Look up "New York Times malice." It is a term of art, having nothing to do with the colloquial definition of "malice.")
    1
  12. Inviting a person to present newsworthy claims is not lying or inviting others to lie, even if the claims are lies. Endorsing the claims when you know they are false, or with reckless disregard as to their truth (as long as you make a buck by doing it) may lead to liability for defamation, sure. It should. Most of what Trump spouted on a daily basis was false. It was newsworthy anyway.
    1
  13.  @TotalConScience  That distinction IS key. You are absolutely right. They have to allege and prove "New York Times malice," which involves knowing the assertions were false and actively endorsing them anyway. If they can prove that, then they can maintain a case against Fox as well as against the people who invented the lies.
    1
  14. No you're not. Defamation is judged strictly statement-by-statement . . . or at least it used to be, until Depp and Heard turned it into a show to relitigate their divorce.
    1
  15. Dominion v. Fox News is a 400+ page complaint. Now I know it's worth my time to read most of it.
    1
  16. If I report that such unfounded questions are being asked of a news and comments anchor, in apparent retaliation for defending journalistic free speech, am I liable for defamation?
    1
  17. Wrong analysis. If they simply reported that Trump or his lawyers made claims that turned out to be false, that is newsworthy. If they endorsed the claims, knowing full well that they were false, that is different. Free speech law isn't your sandbox, dear.
    1
  18. That was alleged; it remains to be proved. Normally, just reporting that a president or his lawyers said X, even if X is a deliberate, defamatory lie, is reporting the news.
    1
  19. Who's lying? If I report that Trump states X and X is a lie, or that Trump's lawyers say X and X is a lie, did I just lie? If I report that the White House asserts that the Nordstream pipeline was destroyed by Russian agents, and that turns out to be false, did I lie? If I report that leaders of the DNC believe Trump was elected in 2016 because of Russian state interference in our election, and that turns out to be false, did I lie?
    1
  20.  @Mawyou  Russiagate" was also an election fraud claim. Should anyone who reported on it be liable for defamation? I don't think so. Did Fox News invent this defamatory claim against Dominion, or simply give the defendants a platform? Think this through.
    1
  21. "Russiagate" was also an election fraud claim. Should anyone who endorsed it be liable for defamation? I don't think so.
    1