SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Dominion Voting wins key decision in lawsuit against Fox News
(don't shoot the messenger unless you intend to ask questions later)
I'll only quote facts reported in the article rather than any opinion. Each fact is either true or false, regardless of the source that reports it.
1: A judge in Delaware has found that Fox News' coverage of election fraud after the 2020 election may have been inaccurate, and is allowing a major defamation case against the right-wing TV network to move forward.
2: Judge Eric Davis of the Delaware Superior Court declined to dismiss Dominion Voting System's lawsuit against Fox News in a significant ruling Thursday.
3: The ruling will now allow Dominion to attempt to unearth extensive communications within Fox News as they gather evidence for the case, and the company may be able to interview the network's top names under oath.
4: Davis called out, in the 52-page opinion, that Fox News may have slanted its coverage to push election fraud, knowing the accusations were wrong.
5: Dominion alerted the network's anchors and executives to information that disproved accusations of widespread vote-switching following Donald Trump's re-election loss, the judge noted.
6: The lawsuit alleges Fox News personalities including Tucker Carlson, Jeanine Pirro, Sean Hannity and their on-air guests Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell spread lies about fraud in the 2020 election that hurt Dominion's business. It is one of several lawsuits Dominion has brought related to right-wing claims after the election, and is a major win for the company.
Was there bamboo on the ballots? Did the voting machines have constant contact with servers outside the US via Italian satellites?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 18 2021, @04:50PM
Facts, you say? Have you watched very many trials? Facts are whatever the judge and council agree them to be. Watch the Rittenhouse trial again - it's still available on Youtube. A lot of "facts" were decided out of sight and hearing of the jury. Take the term "victims" as an example. Binger and company desperately wanted to depict the people who were shot as "victims". In a kind of technical sense, all three people were victims. In medical terms, they were the victims of gunshot wounds. However, in legal terms, those same victims were the perpetrators of actions which resulted in gunshot wounds, which removes their legal status as "victims". While the judge did no exactly spell out in legalese why they were not victims, he did note that the use of the term was prejudicial to the defendant.
So, facts. Facts are whatever the legal community agrees to, and/or whatever the judge dictates them to be.
Going a little further, there was a small ship load of facts that the prosecution did NOT want presented to the jury, and the judge agreed with. Such as the fact that one dead man was a lunatic who had just been released from the asylum after a suicide attempt, only hours before committing suicide by Rittenhouse. Or the fact that the other dead guy had a criminal history. Or that the wounded man had a criminal history, which precluded him from possessing a firearm, clearly present in his attempt to kill Rittenhouse.
Yes, think about facts. But, to be perfectly honest, court only accepts those facts that the court chooses to allow.