Tag: libel

  • Fox News-Dominion libel case set to begin after brief delay

    Fox News-Dominion libel case set to begin after brief delay

    [ad_1]

    fox dominion lawsuit 64982

    “This is not a press conference,” Davis said during Monday’s brief hearing. “I don’t do that.”

    A trial would force Fox to answer for its actions in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election and litigate denial about the outcome of the race in general. The case centers on whether Fox defamed Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems by spreading false claims that the company rigged the election against then-President Donald Trump.

    A settlement is certainly a possibility in a trial that carries risks for both sides. Fox already has been embarrassed by revelations that some of its executives and on-air personalities did not believe fraud claims that the network spread on the air, and it doesn’t want to see 92-year-old founder Rupert Murdoch testify. Dominion could miss a big payday if a jury rules against it.

    Not everyone wants the case to go away quietly, however.

    “PLEASE Dominion — Do not settle with Fox! You’re about to prove something very big,” tweeted Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox anchor whose accusations of sexual misconduct by former Fox chief Roger Ailes led to his downfall in 2016.

    Fox, meanwhile, paid for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times on Monday headlined “Trusted Now. More Than Ever.”

    Dozens of journalists gathered at the courthouse in downtown Wilmington, some before dawn, for a hearing that lasted about five minutes. The courtyard in front of the court building was full of TV crews ready to do live shots.

    Besides its implications for Fox, the case is being watched carefully by journalists for what it could mean for libel law. Defamation is generally hard to prove, since it requires a finding that journalists published information they knew to be false, or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

    Some First Amendment lawyers say Dominion’s lawsuit presents a powerful case, given the doubt expressed within Fox about the fraud allegations. Fox says Dominion can’t prove that the people with such doubts were in position to affect what was said on the air about the company.

    Even before a jury hears the case, Davis has made some rulings in Dominion’s favor, including stating that the allegations of election fraud made against the company were clearly false. That means the issue will not have to be litigated in the trial.

    [ad_2]
    #Fox #NewsDominion #libel #case #set #delay
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Fox attorneys in libel case reveal dual roles for Rupert Murdoch

    Fox attorneys in libel case reveal dual roles for Rupert Murdoch

    [ad_1]

    herman kahn award pompeo 90044

    Fox Corp. had asserted since Dominion filed its lawsuit in 2021 that Rupert Murdoch had no official role at Fox News. In its filings, it had listed Fox News officers as Suzanne Scott, Jay Wallace and Joe Dorrego.

    But on Easter Sunday, Fox disclosed to Dominion’s attorneys that Murdoch also is “executive chair” at Fox News. The disclosure came after Superior Court Judge Eric Davis wondered aloud during a status conference last week who Fox News’ officers were.

    Davis was clearly disturbed by the disclosure, coming on the eve of the trial.

    “My problem is that it has been represented to me more than once that he is not an officer,” the judge said.

    Davis suggested that had he known of Murdoch’s dual role at Fox Corp. and Fox News, he might have reached different conclusions in a summary judgment ruling he issued last month. In that ruling, the judge said there was no dispute that the statements aired by Fox were false, but that a jury would have to decide whether Fox News acted with actual malice and whether Fox Corp. directly participated in airing the statements.

    To Fox attorney Matthew Carter, Davis said: “You have a credibility problem.”

    In response, Carter said he believed Murdoch’s title at Fox News was only “honorific.”

    “I’m not mad at you,” the judge later told Carter. “I’m mad at the situation I’m in.”

    In a statement issued after Tuesday’s pretrial hearing, Fox said, “Rupert Murdoch has been listed as executive chairman of Fox News in our SEC filings since 2019 and this filing was referenced by Dominion’s own attorney during his deposition.”

    It’s unclear whether the judge will take any action in response to the late disclosure. But an attorney for Dominion said he wanted Fox to further explain Murdoch’s role with the network, indicating the issue could come up when the pretrial hearing continues Wednesday.

    [ad_2]
    #Fox #attorneys #libel #case #reveal #dual #roles #Rupert #Murdoch
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Appeals court backs N.C. attorney general in battle to avoid criminal libel prosecution

    Appeals court backs N.C. attorney general in battle to avoid criminal libel prosecution

    [ad_1]

    Freeman, O’Neill and Stein are all Democrats.

    At Stein’s request, U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles briefly blocked any prosecution, but she later withdrew the temporary order and allowed the prosecution to proceed. Stein appealed to the 4th Circuit, which granted an injunction pending appeal and in the new ruling said Eagles erred when she turned down Stein’s request to block the prosecution.

    Criminal libel prosecutions in the U.S. are almost unheard of in recent decades, but Freeman’s office argued that a 1964 Supreme Court decision upholding a similar Louisiana statute has never been overturned by the high court and remains good law. However, the unanimous three-judge appeals court panel said the North Carolina statute is constitutionally suspect because it appears to ban some truthful statements and because it imposes greater limits on speech related to political campaigns than on other topics.

    “Under this law, prosecutors need never show—or even allege—a ‘derogatory’ statement was false so long as they contend the speaker acted with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity,” Judge Toby Heytens wrote in a 15-page opinion joined by Judges Albert Diaz and Allison Rushing. “Nothing more is needed to show this Act is likely unconstitutional.”

    Heytens is the appeals court’s newest judge and an appointee of President Joe Biden. Diaz was appointed by President Bill Clinton and Rushing is an appointee of President Donald Trump.

    Freeman, the Wake County district attorney, argued that North Carolina courts would interpret derogatory to mean false and that the chance of a prosecutor seeking to apply the law against reckless but truthful statements was remote, but the appeals court disagreed.

    The appeals judges also said the statute’s focus on political speech was problematic. “The Act’s careful limitation to only a subset of derogatory statements to which elected officials may be particularly hostile—those harmful to their own political prospects—raises the ‘possibility that official suppression of ideas is afoot,’” Heytens wrote, quoting another Supreme Court precedent.

    The appeals court ordered the case returned to Eagles for further action, instructing her to consider other factors related to a preliminary injunction against prosecution of Stein and others. But the 4th Circuit’s declaration that the underlying law is probably unconstitutional makes it highly likely the lower court will now block it, unless Freeman agrees to halt any enforcement.

    Freeman’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

    [ad_2]
    #Appeals #court #backs #N.C #attorney #general #battle #avoid #criminal #libel #prosecution
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Washington Post lawyers are deposing ex-Nunes aides in libel suit about 2017 White House visit

    Washington Post lawyers are deposing ex-Nunes aides in libel suit about 2017 White House visit

    [ad_1]

    election 2024 trump 85403

    In late 2020, Nunes sued The Post. He alleges in his complaint that a Post story published earlier that year — that labeled Nunes’ visit to the White House a “midnight run” aimed at buttressing Trump’s baseless claims that he had his “wires tapped” while he was a candidate for president — was erroneous and intended to imply nefariousness. The Post report came amid escalating probes related to the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, and as Trump attacked intelligence agencies pursuing the matter.

    After the story was published, The Post added a correction to the top of it, noting that Nunes had stated he did not believe the wiretapping claims and that his visit to the White House “took place during daylight hours.”

    The litigation is one of a flurry of lawsuits Nunes filed against news outlets, and Post attorneys have accused him in court of wielding the litigation for political and fundraising purposes. They have told the judge in their case that they are seeking evidence from Nunes and his aides about both the circumstances of the 2017 White House trip, which could help prove the accuracy of the paper’s reporting, as well as evidence about how Nunes has sought to benefit from the litigation.

    Among the evidence The Post has obtained is an official visitor log showing that Nunes arrived at the White House at 5:30 p.m. on March 21. Nunes estimates he remained for about 90 minutes before attending a Republican Party function and then an afterparty with constituents and a House colleague at the time, former Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.)

    But during the nearly two-hour hearing on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols chided Nunes and his attorney, Steven Biss, for what he described as incomplete responses to The Post’s demands for information about the 2017 White House trip. The Post had asked — and Nichols ordered — Nunes to produce a detailed itinerary about his whereabouts and actions on March 21, 2017, and received just three paragraphs in response, omitting key details about where he was and who he was with.

    “That’s not a timeline — that could not be more general,” Nichols complained to Biss.

    Biss filled in some of those details at Wednesday’s hearing, prompting Nichols to suggest the information should have been turned over to The Post.

    “This isn’t about telling me orally what you think happened,” said the judge, who is a Trump appointee.

    The Post contended that Nunes’ limited production of information about his White House visit defied credulity. He told the paper that only his former spokesman, Jack Langer, had relevant details about that trip and that he never emailed, texted or spoke to any other aides or colleagues about it. Biss indicated that Nunes couldn’t recall precisely how he arranged the visit but believed he coordinated it with Ellis on a “classified” phone line and treated even the logistical details about the visit as classified.

    “Everything related to that meeting was classified,” Biss insisted.

    But Nichols noted that Nunes discussed the visit publicly the next day. And Post attorney Nicholas Gamse said that Ellis’ own deposition contradicted aspects of that story. Ellis, he said, recalled stepping out of a secure room to reach Nunes on his personal phone, not a classified line. And Ellis told the paper that he might have texted with Nunes about it, as well. Yet Nunes produced no call records or texts in response to the court’s discovery order.

    Gamse contended that Nunes’ claim to have so little to produce in response to the court’s order beggared belief. Ellis, he said, also recalled discussing the documents Nunes reviewed with other Nunes staffers on the House Intelligence Committee. And Nunes provided no details about when and how he departed from the White House to attend the GOP function, including whether he traveled with anyone or took a car, for which a receipt might be available.

    “We have not gotten a straight answer,” Gamse complained.

    Nichols said he intended to rule on The Post’s complaints quickly to keep the case moving forward.

    Biss countered The Post’s concerns by suggesting that there simply wasn’t much for Nunes to produce. He didn’t discuss his White House visit with any staffers, never traded emails or texts with them about it, and asked his former aides to check for information, only to hear that they had none, the lawyer said.

    Post attorneys, however, said they obtained at least one text message from Nunes’ former deputy chief of staff, Caitlin Shannon, and a detailed itinerary from Morrow, his scheduler, that Nunes hadn’t turned over in the case. The newspaper’s lawyers also raised concerns that some evidence that might have been relevant might have been destroyed when Nunes resigned his congressional seat at the end of 2021 and staffers returned their official devices.

    Biss also disclosed on Wednesday that he and Nunes considered filing suit against at least one other news organization over its reporting on the disputed White House visit. The attorney did not identify which other outlet Nunes considered suing.

    [ad_2]
    #Washington #Post #lawyers #deposing #exNunes #aides #libel #suit #White #House #visit
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )