A Manhattan judge has tossed out a defamation lawsuit against Fox News brought by the former Playboy model who took a $150,000 payoff to squelch her story of an affair with a pre-presidency Donald Trump. The judge said that lawyers for Fox "persuasively" argued that "any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements" Carlson makes Given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."
In fairness, he doesn't claim to be a journalist. Its an opinion show. Unlike Nytimes, wapo. propaganda disguised as honest news.
Tucker Carlson asks the hard questions which is why extreme liberal soyboys cannot stand it if ever asked any hard questions. You think Joe Biden is awake from his nap to answer some questions? Would give him a chance to practice for tomorrow's debate. I am sure Joe Biden is extremely excited by the debate.
That's some bullshit defense given the viewership from the numbskulls. We all know he's full of shit, but certainly enough people believe him, including some on this very board.
So you think you need to be a journalist to be guilty of malice or slander.... hmmm interesting fantasy there. So chris cuomo on CNN can go on the air and say Trump molests children and escape any legla punishment by simply saying he is not a journalist? Wow......interesting take on the law. According to your analysis, WAPO is not journalism either so they can never be sued for malice/slander.
who the hell knows, the law is so convoluted. people getting slandered all day long on "reputable" news outlets that hide behind imaginary "sources".. so you tell me how this works. i have no idea.
The case against Carlson was tenuous because Carlson called it extortion and said she was not telling the truth. Basically he was expressing an opinion. We have opinions gfoing back and forth all the time and that is the difference of opinion on candidates or other topics. These do not rise to slander unless you make a factual claim. For example if Carlson said Joe is a pedo. Then Joe can sue tomorrow and win in a heartbeat because Carlons is making a factual claim with NO truth and that is the standard for famous people. McWhoregal decided not to tell her story and combat the claims she was lying so her claims of slander/malice were pretty weak based on Carlson saying this sounded like extortion. FOX NEWS lawyers were fucktarded to throw Carlson under the bus and basically say he is a full of shit windbag that no one believes. They had an easy case but decided to claim their guy was an asshat spouting off shit and the Trump appointed judge showed how bad a judge she is and believed it. Horrible case under the law all around by FOX lawyers and the judge. McWhoregal's lawyers made a valiant effort but if her client was paid to be silenced then she has no one thing to complain about even when the news claimed they paid her off to keep quiet.
If you are in the public you cannot sue just because someone made fun of you. If they make a factual claim that is damaging with no basis in truth then you can sue and win (like many lawsuits against National Enquirer). Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual.[1] In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hustler magazine, holding that a parody ad published in the magazine depicting televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr. as an incestuous drunk, was protected speech since Falwell was a public figure and the parody could not have been reasonably considered believable. Therefore, the Court held that the emotional distress inflicted on Falwell by the ad was not a sufficient reason to deny the First Amendment protection to speech that is critical of public officials and public figures.[1][2]