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: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 21 2021, @05:46PM
It's a witch hunt because for over 200 years, political speech was free speech. That is, politicians could say anything, and never be held liable. That is still mostly true today, almost every politician in Washington has been quoted saying something blatantly untrue and dishonest. The oxycontin business is back in the news, right? That whole scandal was kicked off by a doctor making blatantly false claims that less than 1% of oxycontin users would ever become addicted. Oxycontin became a political issue because the Sacklers bought and paid for representation in Washington. Virtually all of Washington, and half or more of the medical community sucked up those claims, and stuck by them long after the claims were proven false.
Aside from the Sacklers, I'm unaware of anyone who has been held liable for making, or repeating claims that oxycontin was non-addictive. Doctors, no matter how famous or how obscure, should all have known better, but they repeated the lies, pushed the drugs, and pocketed the money. Sales reps are a bit more slippery - you expect sales reps to lie to you. Even so, they repeated the lies, again and again, pushing their drugs, never questioning the "facts" that were lining their pockets.
Politics. If Fox and the rest are going to be prosecuted for politically motivated lies, we can expect the same to happen in the future. And, some of those future scenarios may not be so pleasing to you.