Settlement reached in Fox v. Dominion litigation

Settlement reached in Fox v. Dominion litigation


Members of the public wait to enter the Leonard Williams Justice Center for the April 18 libel trial of Dominion Voting Systems vs. FOX News in Wilmington, Delaware.

The court reconvenes after a break for lunch and opening statements it is expected to start soon in a historic defamation lawsuit brought by election technology company Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.

Here’s what you need to know about the high-stakes case:

Why is Dominion Suing Fox News? Power sued Fox News in 2021 for repeatedly promoting the right-wing network’s false claims about the company, including that its voting machines rigged the 2020 election by switching millions of ballots from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. Most of the 20 allegedly defamatory broadcasts listed in the lawsuit occurred in November and December 2020.

The company claims that the folks at Fox News acted with real malice and “reckless disregard for the truth” when they spread this misinformation about Dominion. To prove “actual malice,” Dominion must convince a jury that the people at Fox News who were responsible for these 20 broadcasts either knew Dominion’s claims were false or recklessly ignored evidence of the falsehood — but put them on the air anyway.

According to Dominion’s theory of the case, Fox promoted those election conspiracy theories because “the lies were good for Fox’s business.” Dominion’s suit specifically focused on shows hosted by Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro. Dominion said that as a result of Fox’s “orchestrated smear campaign” it suffered “enormous and irreparable economic harm” and that its employees were exposed death threats and harassment.

What is Fox’s defense? Fox said he had not defamed anyone and that the case was an unwarranted attack on media freedom.

A Fox spokesperson said the network is “proud of our coverage of the 2020 election.” and that his reporting “is in keeping with the highest traditions of American journalism.” The company said, “Dominion’s lawsuit is a political crusade for financial gain, but the real cost would be cherished First Amendment rights.”

Fox also accused Dominion of creating “noise and confusion” over the case, stating that “the heart of this case remains freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution,” specifically the First Amendment.

Fox tried to dismiss the lawsuit. But in a major blow to the right-wing network last month, the judge overseeing the case allowed it to go to trial. It also has forbidden Liac from invoking some key First Amendment defenses, finding them without merit.

What is Dominion looking for? Dominion is seeking $1.6 billion in damages. Fox’s on-air lies are said to have ruined his reputation and caused election officials to cancel their contracts with Dominion. CNN recently published about growing distrust of voting machines in heavily Republican counties.

What are the logistics of the trial? The trial is expected to last five to six weeks and will be overseen by Delaware Supreme Court Justice Eric M. Davis, who was appointed to the state court in 2012 by the Democratic governor. A panel of 12 jurors and 12 deputies is in session.

Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom and there will be no recording of the proceedings. There will also be no photos in the courtroom.

Who is expected to testify? Expected witnesses include Fox Corporation executives Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch; Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and Chairman Jay Wallace; prominent TV hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Bret Baier, among others.

Dominion said it may also call Viet Dinh, Fox’s chief legal officer, and former House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Fox board member, as witnesses.

Both sides are also hoping for testimony from their carefully selected experts who specialize in election statistics, voting machine security, journalistic ethics, the impact of disinformation in public discourse and more.

Read more about the case here.



Source link