Crikey dares Murdoch to sue them for defamation.
- Thread starter Number37
- Start date
- Tagged users None
A balanced view of the push & shove of legal actions.
As for Murdoch, it has plenty of experience of winning & losing. They just keep on, keeping on ... its a media thing.
Fox’s Top Lawyer’s ‘Screw Up’ Could Help Smartmatic and Dominion Access His Internal Communications
A top lawyer for Fox Corp. failed to keep his registration with the California Bar in good standing for nearly four years -- and the screwup may provide a key advantage to several plaintiffs who have filed multibillion dollar defamation suits over Fox News' coverage of the 2020 election.
www.mediaite.com
‘Ego, hubris and ideology’: Judge blasts Crikey v Murdoch motives
‘Ego, hubris and ideology’: Judge blasts Crikey v Murdoch motives
Crikey publisher Private Media wants hundreds of pages of evidence from the US Dominion case against Fox brought into its defence against Lachlan Murdoch.
The judge in the blockbuster defamation case between Lachlan Murdoch and Crikey publisher Private Media says he is considering sending both sides back to mediation, describing the case as being “driven more by ego and hubris and ideology”.
Private Media’s lawyers have applied to include hundreds of pages of evidence from the $US1.6 billion ($2.4 billion) Dominion defamation case against Fox Corporation as part of their new defence against the claim from Mr Murdoch.
Apart from the headline, a reference to Mr Murdoch only appears in the final line of the article, pointing the finger of blame at “the Murdochs and their slew of poisonous Fox News commentators”. It was taken down on June 30 after a formal legal complaint, but republished on August 15.
Mr Murdoch’s lawyers have argued that time was used to write a “Lachlan Murdoch campaign” with an explicit goal to drive subscriptions and revenue.
Justice Michael Wigney is deciding whether Private Media’s defence will be allowed in the case, which is due to go to trial in October this year. Mr Murdoch will need to appear and give evidence in the trial.
“I say this with the greatest respect. There does seem to be a hint that this case is being driven more by ego and hubris and ideology than anything else,” Justice Wigney said. “I’m seriously giving consideration to referring it to mediation again. It seems to me to be a useful course.”
The judge will make a decision at 2.30pm.
FYI I'm persona non grata on the 'those afraid of Rupert Murdoch' thread - effectively banned because I'm not afraid of the 90+ fella, & my posts upset the moderator & some of their fellow travellers in the sheltered workshop that that thread has become.
Last edited:
- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,340
- 35,384
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #106
FYI I'm persona non grata on the 'those afraid of Rupert Murdoch' thread - effectively banned because I'm not afraid of the 90+ fella, & my posts upset the moderator & some of their fellow travellers in the sheltered workshop that that thread has become.
You are the most prolific poster in that thread, and it's mostly pro-murdoch propaganda that you have posted in there.
Perhaps you aren't afraid because you know he needs his boots licked by someone. You have shown that you are more than happy to oblige.
If you keep posting publicly about moderation, you will not like the outcome.
what ya reckon kwality .... the carry on over in US still not relevant?
www.smh.com.au
Crikey seeks to use Rupert Murdoch’s US testimony in defamation defence
The online news outlet wants to rely on material aired in US voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox Corporation.
Ah, the 'in crowd' throwing about threats.
The truth hurts it appears. Do as I say or you cant say anything at all
I am not the most prolific poster & have not been for some time, as you clearly have not noticed.
My fyi was for kalex6251's query.
I've not followed it. Anything involving US politics leaves me cold, even when Rupert is involved.what ya reckon kwality .... the carry on over in US still not relevant?
Crikey seeks to use Rupert Murdoch’s US testimony in defamation defence
The online news outlet wants to rely on material aired in US voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox Corporation.
I'll get up to speed & share my view happily.
- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,340
- 35,384
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #110
what ya reckon kwality .... the carry on over in US still not relevant?
Crikey seeks to use Rupert Murdoch’s US testimony in defamation defence
The online news outlet wants to rely on material aired in US voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox Corporation.
Looking to get up to speed, is this AFR article (Apr 1) a reasonable summary for me to start with, or maybe you can direct me to something that better represents your view at this point.
Judge sends Fox News defamation case to trial
A Delaware judge’s ruling Friday (Saturday AEDT) set the stage for a dramatic springtime trial on whether Fox News bears financial responsibility for airing false allegations that a voting machine company rigged the 2020 presidential election against former President Donald Trump.Superior Court Judge Eric Davis ruled that it was “crystal clear” that none of the allegations made by Trump allies on Fox in the weeks after the election were true.
Judge Davis said it was up to a jury to decide whether Fox acted with actual malice in airing the claims and, if so, how much money Dominion is entitled to in damages. Dominion has sued Fox for $US1.6 billion ($2.4 billion).
Barring a last-minute settlement, the trial is expected to begin in mid-April.
“The statements at issue were dramatically different than the truth,” Judge Davis said in a summary judgment ruling, which denied Fox’s effort to throw out the case as well as Dominion’s request for a victory without a jury.
“In fact, although it cannot be attributed directly to Fox’s statements, it is noteworthy that some Americans still believe the election was rigged.”
Fox’s failure to reveal extensive evidence contradicting the fraud claims “indicates that its reporting was not disinterested,” the judge wrote.
In a statement issued after the ruling, Dominion said it was gratified that the court had rejected Fox’s arguments and found “as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. We look forward to going to trial.”
Murdoch, Hannity could
testify
Fox emphasised that the case is about the media’s First Amendment protections, and that it was trying to cover highly newsworthy developments — a sitting president’s claim that an election was rigged.“Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings,” the network said in a statement Friday.
The ruling sets the stage for a trial in which Fox News stars such as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Maria Bartiromo, as well as network founder Rupert Murdoch, could be called to the stand.
Even before the judge’s ruling, thousands of pages of evidence presented in the case showed Fox executives and stars privately ridiculing the accusations and bluntly expressing opinions, like Mr Carlson saying he hated Trump “passionately”.
During a deposition, Murdoch testified that he believed the 2020 election was fair and had not been stolen from the former president.
“Fox knew the truth,” Dominion argued in court papers. “It knew the allegations against Dominion were ‘outlandish’ and ‘crazy’ and ‘ludicrous’ and ‘nuts.’ Yet it used the power and influence of its platform to promote that false story.”
Fox aired the allegations despite the doubts of its hosts and executives, and the coverage helped feed an ecosystem of misinformation surrounding Trump’s loss in 2020 that has persisted ever since.
The documents also showed Fox feared losing viewers angered by the network’s election night call of Arizona for Democrat Joe Biden, and how it didn’t want to alienate viewers who backed Trump.
In methodically going through each side’s arguments, Judge Davis said neither Fox nor Dominion had presented a convincing argument for him to rule on whether the network acted with malice.
“These are genuine issues of material fact and therefore must be determined by a jury,” he said.
Judge Davis denied summary judgment to Dominion on whether Fox, the news network’s parent company, was liable for the statements being aired — meaning the corporate executives’ responsibility will have to be settled at trial.
The Trump allies had falsely claimed after the election that Dominion’s machines and accompanying software had switched votes from Mr Trump to Mr Biden. Dominion claims it has lost millions
of dollars in business because this belief spread across the country; Fox contends its claims are overblown.
Judge Davis ruled that the statements Dominion had challenged constitute defamation “per se” under New York law. That means Dominion did not have to prove damages to establish liability by Fox.
The US Supreme Court limited the ability of public figures to sue for defamation in a 1964 case involving The New York Times. It ruled that plaintiffs needed to prove that news outlets published or aired false material with “actual malice” — knowing it was false or acting with a “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.
That has provided news organisations with stout protection against libel judgments. The nearly six-decade legal standard has come under attack by some conservatives, including Mr Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who have argued for making it easier to win a libel case.'
How long since I was banned dear boy?
- Oct 4, 2016
- 7,413
- 11,666
- AFL Club
- Richmond
admire your forbearance but not quite sure why you bother. trolls live off flaming.
what ya reckon kwality .... the carry on over in US still not relevant?
Crikey seeks to use Rupert Murdoch’s US testimony in defamation defence
The online news outlet wants to rely on material aired in US voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox Corporation.
Trying to understand the quantum of Dominions claimed losses. Bear with me.
Trying to understand $bils claim - good headline number or is there a financial case supporting it.
Without a basic understanding of US law its looking to me as a case of who you want to believe.
Maybe the smartmatics case might shine some light on the legals. (no I wasnt across it, just another headline to me).
- Oct 4, 2016
- 7,413
- 11,666
- AFL Club
- Richmond
contact kwality.
Is Dominion Voting case against Fox News worth as much as $1.6 billion?
As Fox Corp defends itself against a high-profile defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, the network is questioning how the company claims it deserves more than $1.6 billion in damages.
Had a good look, still appears to be what litigation you prefer to believe.
I can understand your enthusiasm at the prospect of getting the 90+ Rupert in the witness box.
Id say their companies and systems are dead in the water now. Can you imagine a republican government anywhere in the country buying their systems?
Or the world for that matter?
And then if the democrats do they will scream blue bloody murder.
It will be a real question, if at all, they win. Be sure to factor in: Fox News settles lawsuit with Venezuelan over election vote-rigging claims
- Oct 4, 2016
- 7,413
- 11,666
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Similar threads
