this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
251 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2661 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
251
In blow to Fox Corp., judge rules Smartmatic case over 2020 election lies can proceed | CNN Business (www.cnn.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

CNN — The voting technology company Smartmatic can move forward with its defamation lawsuit against Fox Corporation, a New York judge ruled Wednesday, dealing a blow to the parent company of Fox News, which is already fighting the massive lawsuit over its repeated airing of 2020 election lies.

The decision from Manhattan Supreme Court Judge David Cohen represents a significant setback to Fox’s corporate leadership, including the powerful Murdoch family, who will now face more scrutiny in the litigation. Cohen already let the case proceed against Fox News — and on Wednesday, he rejected a request by Fox Corporation to throw out the claims against the parent company.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 64 points 10 months ago (1 children)

“We will be ready to defend this case surrounding extremely newsworthy events when it goes to trial, likely in 2025,” a Fox spokesperson said in a statement after the ruling. “As a report prepared by our financial expert shows, Smartmatic’s damages claims are implausible, disconnected from reality, and on their face intended to chill First Amendment freedoms.”

Yeah, right. They already settled the Dominion case for almost a billion dollars. This case is practically identical. I actually hope they're stupid enough to take this one to trial.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They don’t have a Tucker to fire this time. Better be ready to spend a bit more.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 10 months ago

With all the political theatre, it's nice to see horrible people eat shit once in a while.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The decision from Manhattan Supreme Court Judge David Cohen represents a significant setback to Fox’s corporate leadership, including the powerful Murdoch family, who will now face more scrutiny in the litigation.

“As a report prepared by our financial expert shows, Smartmatic’s damages claims are implausible, disconnected from reality, and on their face intended to chill First Amendment freedoms.”

The case is still in the discovery phase, with some major depositions taking place in the past month, including former Fox Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch.

That case unearthed tranches of internal emails that described in devastating detail how top Fox officials cravenly allowed Trump allies like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell to lie about the election on its shows.

Fox filed its counterclaims against Smartmatic last year, in a bid to push back against the company and recover the money it’s spending on high-priced attorneys to defend itself.

Smartmatic had asked Cohen to dismiss the counterclaims, on the basis that of Fox’s arguments were already shut down in Dominion’s similar defamation case that the right-wing network settled last year, and that they shouldn’t be relitigated now.

The original article contains 785 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!