The judge ruled Fox defamed Dominion. The one thing the judge ruled that would still be at issue in the trial was "did Fox act with malice?".....meaning did they know they were making false statements or not care if their statements were false.
But how can the judge do that when Dominion did not have to prove anything?? If anything, this summary judgement basically says Fox exercised free speech and then they stop short of determining whether that speech was purposefully harmful which should have been the only thing on trial. Fox did nothing wrong in terms of this case and it is just criminal money laundering/transferring at the end of the day. Anyone with eyes can see it.
But how can the judge do that when Dominion did not have to prove anything?
But they did have to prove things. This lawsuit has been going on for two years. Dominion got access to the Fox emails and texts in discovery, they deposed witnesses. They turned over their source code to Fox.
Page 43 the judge says
While the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material fact as to falsity. Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden. The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear ...
...
this summary judgement basically says Fox exercised free speech
Defamation is not free speech and doesn't enjoy the protections of the First Amendment which is why you can sue someone for libel or slander.
I'm not following you.
The judge did issue a summary judgement.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885-dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment
The judge ruled Fox defamed Dominion. The one thing the judge ruled that would still be at issue in the trial was "did Fox act with malice?".....meaning did they know they were making false statements or not care if their statements were false.
Fox had a really bad hand going into trial.
But how can the judge do that when Dominion did not have to prove anything?? If anything, this summary judgement basically says Fox exercised free speech and then they stop short of determining whether that speech was purposefully harmful which should have been the only thing on trial. Fox did nothing wrong in terms of this case and it is just criminal money laundering/transferring at the end of the day. Anyone with eyes can see it.
But they did have to prove things. This lawsuit has been going on for two years. Dominion got access to the Fox emails and texts in discovery, they deposed witnesses. They turned over their source code to Fox. Page 43 the judge says
...
Defamation is not free speech and doesn't enjoy the protections of the First Amendment which is why you can sue someone for libel or slander.
I would look at pages 38-43 of the summary judgement. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885-dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment