Thats certainly what news.com.au is for ....
Crikey dares Murdoch to sue them for defamation.
- Thread starter Number37
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Thats certainly what news.com.au is for ....
- Oct 4, 2016
- 7,338
- 11,560
- AFL Club
- Richmond
ol’ joe isn’t getting a lot right these days but he’s really hit the target this time
with:
- a congress as hostile as the one biden has to work with (and a house republican minority unhinged as it is)
- a senate deadlocked at 50/50
- a senate democratic membership beholden to the recalcitrant whims and fancies of manchin and sinema .....
bidens actually doing ok
Pelosi rules the House.
Gough
Moderator
- Sep 29, 2006
- 71,872
- 133,411
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Moderator
- #57
My pub was in a village called Twyford not far from Reading and the authorities took Wilde to the station there when he was released from jail to avoid the media. I often thought of the poor prick as I was waiting there for my train.
I have ancestors from there. Cousin?
Wokingham, Reading & Sulhampstead. What''s a Pikie
Ta.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #63
Seems the Murdochs have got a fair bit on their hands, not sure why they are worrying about small fish Crikey.
Some of the biggest names at Fox News have been questioned, or are scheduled to be questioned in the coming days, by lawyers representing Dominion Voting Systems in its $1.6 billion defamation suit against the network, as the election technology company presses ahead with a case that First Amendment scholars say is extraordinary in its scope and significance.
Sean Hannity became the latest Fox star to be called for a deposition by Dominion’s legal team, according to a new filing in Delaware Superior Court. He is scheduled to appear on Wednesday.
Tucker Carlson is set to face questioning on Friday. Lou Dobbs, whose Fox Business show was canceled last year, is scheduled to appear on Tuesday. Others who have been deposed recently include Jeanine Pirro, Steve Doocy and a number of high-level Fox producers, court records show.
People with knowledge of the case, who would speak only anonymously, said they expected that the chief executive of Fox News Media, Suzanne Scott, could be one of the next to be deposed, along with the president of Fox News, Jay Wallace. Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, whose family owns Fox, could follow in the coming weeks.
The depositions are among the clearest indications yet of how aggressively Dominion is moving forward with its suit, which is set to go to trial early next year, and of the legal pressure building on the nation’s most powerful conservative media company.
Some of the biggest names at Fox News have been questioned, or are scheduled to be questioned in the coming days, by lawyers representing Dominion Voting Systems in its $1.6 billion defamation suit against the network, as the election technology company presses ahead with a case that First Amendment scholars say is extraordinary in its scope and significance.
Sean Hannity became the latest Fox star to be called for a deposition by Dominion’s legal team, according to a new filing in Delaware Superior Court. He is scheduled to appear on Wednesday.
Tucker Carlson is set to face questioning on Friday. Lou Dobbs, whose Fox Business show was canceled last year, is scheduled to appear on Tuesday. Others who have been deposed recently include Jeanine Pirro, Steve Doocy and a number of high-level Fox producers, court records show.
People with knowledge of the case, who would speak only anonymously, said they expected that the chief executive of Fox News Media, Suzanne Scott, could be one of the next to be deposed, along with the president of Fox News, Jay Wallace. Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, whose family owns Fox, could follow in the coming weeks.
The depositions are among the clearest indications yet of how aggressively Dominion is moving forward with its suit, which is set to go to trial early next year, and of the legal pressure building on the nation’s most powerful conservative media company.
This is true.
Lachlan is Rupert's idiot son. He's Rupert's problem and he knows it.
Rupert is happy for Lachlan to marry a princess and live in a castle but that's as far as he's prepared to let him off the leash.
Rupert's other son James, however, is another thing altogether.
$100 million Lachlan
That’s how much the old man had to bail him out when he went out on his own.
One.Tel, Channel 10…..dad fixed all that.
Struts around in his big boy pants telling everyone how he sacked Turnbull.
Sure you did, Fredo.
Flew over here last year on his 20 mil private jet, lectured the shareholders on ‘elitism’, bought a 50 mil yacht, then flew back home.
Last edited:
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #66
Good article to read from the Guardian. Rather lengthy but found this section interesting.
Dr Matthew Collins QC, the president of the Australian Bar Association and a defamation law expert, says the fundamental legal question to be considered by the court is “what does the ordinary reasonable reader of the Crikey piece understand to be conveyed by the piece”.
“And here, what’s interesting is that Lachlan Murdoch is not named – the reference is to Murdoch and to Fox News, and the imputations derive mostly from the heading and that single sentence at the end.”
Perhaps counterintuitively, having written less, rather than more, about Murdoch, leaves greater scope for argument about what the article conveys to a reader.
Collins argues “there are very serious questions about whether the imputations are, in fact, conveyed, and serious questions about whether the article sufficiently identifies Mr Murdoch in circumstances where he hasn’t been expressly named”.
And he argues the case is ripe to contest the newly introduced “public interest” defence in NSW defamation law: a defence to the publication of defamatory material if the issue is of public interest and it was reasonably believed the publication of the matter was in the public interest.
www.theguardian.com
Article ends with:
In the legal correspondence with the Murdochs that Crikey published this week, it quoted Lachlan’s own words back at him. In his 2014 Keith Murdoch Oration (Keith Murdoch was his grandfather), Lachlan Murdoch argued “censorship should be resisted in all its insidious forms”.
“We should be vigilant of the gradual erosion of our freedom to know, to be informed and make reasoned decisions in our society and in our democracy.”
Dr Matthew Collins QC, the president of the Australian Bar Association and a defamation law expert, says the fundamental legal question to be considered by the court is “what does the ordinary reasonable reader of the Crikey piece understand to be conveyed by the piece”.
“And here, what’s interesting is that Lachlan Murdoch is not named – the reference is to Murdoch and to Fox News, and the imputations derive mostly from the heading and that single sentence at the end.”
Perhaps counterintuitively, having written less, rather than more, about Murdoch, leaves greater scope for argument about what the article conveys to a reader.
Collins argues “there are very serious questions about whether the imputations are, in fact, conveyed, and serious questions about whether the article sufficiently identifies Mr Murdoch in circumstances where he hasn’t been expressly named”.
And he argues the case is ripe to contest the newly introduced “public interest” defence in NSW defamation law: a defence to the publication of defamatory material if the issue is of public interest and it was reasonably believed the publication of the matter was in the public interest.
‘What game is he playing?’: Lachlan Murdoch, Trump’s election lies and the legal fight against a small Australian website
Observers say a showdown between the minnow and the monolith has been looking ‘increasingly inevitable’
Article ends with:
In the legal correspondence with the Murdochs that Crikey published this week, it quoted Lachlan’s own words back at him. In his 2014 Keith Murdoch Oration (Keith Murdoch was his grandfather), Lachlan Murdoch argued “censorship should be resisted in all its insidious forms”.
“We should be vigilant of the gradual erosion of our freedom to know, to be informed and make reasoned decisions in our society and in our democracy.”
Good article to read from the Guardian. Rather lengthy but found this section interesting.
Dr Matthew Collins QC, the president of the Australian Bar Association and a defamation law expert, says the fundamental legal question to be considered by the court is “what does the ordinary reasonable reader of the Crikey piece understand to be conveyed by the piece”.
“And here, what’s interesting is that Lachlan Murdoch is not named – the reference is to Murdoch and to Fox News, and the imputations derive mostly from the heading and that single sentence at the end.”
Perhaps counterintuitively, having written less, rather than more, about Murdoch, leaves greater scope for argument about what the article conveys to a reader.
Collins argues “there are very serious questions about whether the imputations are, in fact, conveyed, and serious questions about whether the article sufficiently identifies Mr Murdoch in circumstances where he hasn’t been expressly named”.
And he argues the case is ripe to contest the newly introduced “public interest” defence in NSW defamation law: a defence to the publication of defamatory material if the issue is of public interest and it was reasonably believed the publication of the matter was in the public interest.
‘What game is he playing?’: Lachlan Murdoch, Trump’s election lies and the legal fight against a small Australian website
Observers say a showdown between the minnow and the monolith has been looking ‘increasingly inevitable’
Article ends with:
In the legal correspondence with the Murdochs that Crikey published this week, it quoted Lachlan’s own words back at him. In his 2014 Keith Murdoch Oration (Keith Murdoch was his grandfather), Lachlan Murdoch argued “censorship should be resisted in all its insidious forms”.
“We should be vigilant of the gradual erosion of our freedom to know, to be informed and make reasoned decisions in our society and in our democracy.”
Good to see you attributed this quote ....
The Dominion action is the big game. NewsCorp is truely screwed on that one.Good article to read from the Guardian. Rather lengthy but found this section interesting.
Dr Matthew Collins QC, the president of the Australian Bar Association and a defamation law expert, says the fundamental legal question to be considered by the court is “what does the ordinary reasonable reader of the Crikey piece understand to be conveyed by the piece”.
“And here, what’s interesting is that Lachlan Murdoch is not named – the reference is to Murdoch and to Fox News, and the imputations derive mostly from the heading and that single sentence at the end.”
Perhaps counterintuitively, having written less, rather than more, about Murdoch, leaves greater scope for argument about what the article conveys to a reader.
Collins argues “there are very serious questions about whether the imputations are, in fact, conveyed, and serious questions about whether the article sufficiently identifies Mr Murdoch in circumstances where he hasn’t been expressly named”.
And he argues the case is ripe to contest the newly introduced “public interest” defence in NSW defamation law: a defence to the publication of defamatory material if the issue is of public interest and it was reasonably believed the publication of the matter was in the public interest.
‘What game is he playing?’: Lachlan Murdoch, Trump’s election lies and the legal fight against a small Australian website
Observers say a showdown between the minnow and the monolith has been looking ‘increasingly inevitable’
Article ends with:
In the legal correspondence with the Murdochs that Crikey published this week, it quoted Lachlan’s own words back at him. In his 2014 Keith Murdoch Oration (Keith Murdoch was his grandfather), Lachlan Murdoch argued “censorship should be resisted in all its insidious forms”.
“We should be vigilant of the gradual erosion of our freedom to know, to be informed and make reasoned decisions in our society and in our democracy.”
Define screwed?
On the hook for billions in damages for sustained unsubstantiated claims about failure of security of Dominion voting systems across the entire Fox network.
Both the network and a large number of its high profile presenters are in for a world of financial pain. And Rudy Guiliani.
Dominion have had their name dragged through the mud on a lie, they aren't f***ing around. They are going to take those campaigners for every cent they have.
Sent from my SM-G990E using Tapatalk
Last edited:
$billions. Lets see ....
Yep, billions. Fox and friends cannot produce any evidence of voter machine fraud to substantiate their on air claims of a stolen election.
This is Dominion's bread and butter and due to these on air claims a percentage of incredibly gullible US citizens are convinced their product is corrupted and no amount of denial will change that fact.
Billions.
Sent from my SM-G990E using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I'm fairly confident that Dominion will settle out of court with Murdoch for $15B.
Similar threads
