South
Fox News’ Claims About Dominion Were False, Judge Rules—But Leaves Election Defamation Issue Up To Trial
Topline
Fox Information and Dominion Voting Techniques are set to go to trial of their contentious $1.6 billion lawsuit over defamation claims after a decide declined to rule sooner Friday—however whereas the decide within the case left it as much as a jury to determine if Fox dedicated defamation, he dominated claims made on the community about 2020 election fraud involving Dominion voting machines had been clearly false.
Key Information
Delaware Superior Court docket Decide Eric Davis denied motions by Fox Information and Dominion for abstract judgment—which might have meant the case was determined and not using a trial—however did rule on Dominion’s allegations that claims made about its voting machines on Fox Information had been false.
Dominion sued Fox in March 2021, alleging the right-wing community had defamed the voting firm by pushing election fraud claims involving its machines regardless of realizing they had been false, claiming Fox continued making the fraud claims for their very own achieve and to cease viewers from going to further-right networks like Newsmax and One America Information.
The voting firm requested the decide to problem abstract judgment and rule in its favor to keep away from the trouble of going to trial, in a court docket submitting that gained nationwide consideration for holding dozens of quotes from Fox Information anchors and high-level executives suggesting they didn’t imagine the fraud claims.
Fox additionally requested the court docket to rule within the case forward of trial, arguing the decide ought to discover Fox didn’t commit defamation as a result of on-air statements about election fraud had been merely reporting on newsworthy occasions and are protected beneath the First Modification.
The proof within the case “demonstrates that’s CRYSTAL clear that not one of the Statements referring to Dominion in regards to the 2020 election are true,” Davis wrote, and located that Fox’s habits constituted defamation per se, that means the statements uncovered the corporate “to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or shame.”
Davis didn’t rule now on the query of “precise malice”—which might imply Fox made the statements realizing they had been false—as a result of he stated there have been “a number of real points” involving the info within the case on that, which ought to be left as much as a jury to determine.
Dominion stated in a press release to Forbes it was “gratified by the Court docket’s thorough ruling soundly rejecting all of Fox’s arguments and defenses, and discovering as a matter of regulation that their statements about Dominion are false,” and Fox stated it could “proceed to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we transfer into the following section of those proceedings.”
What To Watch For
The trial within the Fox-Dominion case is slated to begin on April 17 and run for 5 weeks. The trial is predicted to be a high-profile affair, and Dominion has pushed for Fox Company chair Rupert Murdoch to testify, which Fox has opposed. Different main witnesses who’re prone to testify embrace Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch. It’s nonetheless potential the case might be resolved earlier than then if the 2 sides conform to settle, although thus far there hasn’t been any indication that can occur. Sources at Fox cited by the Los Angeles Instances in early March stated there was “no signal a settlement is close to,” and authorized specialists are divided on whether or not they suppose the case may finish earlier than it goes to trial. “There may be an apparent endgame right here … and is it to accept just a few hundred million {dollars} and stroll away and by no means focus on it once more,” media regulation skilled Daniel Novack informed the Hollywood Reporter, whereas former federal prosecutor Tim Heaphy informed MSNBC he believes Dominion wouldn’t need to settle as a result of “they need plenty of these info to be laid naked in a courtroom in a public continuing.”
Massive Quantity
$1.6 billion. That’s how a lot Dominion is asking Fox to pay for its alleged defamation, although the ultimate quantity may find yourself being greater or decrease primarily based on what the jury decides. Fox has strongly opposed the $1.6 billion determine as being disproportionately excessive primarily based on Dominion’s worth as an organization and its losses stemming from the fraud claims.
Key Background
Dominion’s case towards Fox Information is certainly one of roughly a dozen defamation circumstances the corporate and rival Smartmatic have introduced towards right-wing figures and information, together with a separate Smartmatic case towards Fox and a number of other of its anchors. (That case nonetheless stays pending.) The election fraud concept alleges the businesses’ voting machines “flipped” votes from former President Donald Trump to President Joe Biden. The claims gained vital traction on the far-right after the 2020 election, although there’s no proof to substantiate them. The Fox case has garnered essentially the most consideration of the corporate’s lawsuits, as latest court docket filings within the case have revealed dozens of feedback from such figures as Carlson, Hannity and Rupert Murdoch casting doubt on the fraud claims. Carlson known as the fraud claims “insane” and “absurd” and stated he “hate[s] [Trump] passionately,” for example, whereas Murdoch admitted he didn’t imagine the fraud claims however didn’t cease election deniers from showing on the community and stated, “I’d have preferred us to be stronger in denouncing [the fraud claims] in hindsight.” Defamation circumstances have usually been onerous to show in court docket, as plaintiffs should show that the alleged defamer acted with “precise malice” realizing their claims had been false, however authorized specialists have speculated the substantial proof of Fox officers discussing the fraud claims might be sufficient to satisfy that burden.
Additional Studying
Right here Are The Most Explosive Feedback Fox Information Stars—Carlson, Ingraham, Hannity—And Murdoch Made Off-Digicam About Trump And The 2020 Election (Forbes)
‘Thoughts Blowingly Nuts’: Fox Information Hosts And Execs Repeatedly Denounced 2020 Election Fraud Off-Air—Right here Are Their Most Scathing Feedback (Forbes)
New Fox Information Paperwork Present Tucker Carlson, Murdoch And Extra Disputing 2020 Election Fraud—Right here Are Their Most Explosive Feedback (Forbes)
Fox Unlikely To Settle With Dominion Over Election Lies As Excessive-Stakes Trial Nears, Specialists Say (Forbes)
Murdoch Admits Fox Information Hosts Pushed False Election Fraud Claims (Forbes)
Mississippi
Attorneys want the US Supreme Court to say Mississippi's felony voting ban is cruel and unusual
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Mississippi’s Jim Crow-era practice of removing voting rights from people convicted of certain felonies, including nonviolent crimes such as forgery and timber theft, attorneys say in new court papers.
Most of the people affected are disenfranchised for life because the state provides few options for restoring ballot access.
“Mississippi’s harsh and unforgiving felony disenfranchisement scheme is a national outlier,” attorneys representing some who lost voting rights said in an appeal filed Wednesday. They wrote that states “have consistently moved away from lifetime felony disenfranchisement over the past few decades.”
This case is the second in recent years — and the third since the late 19th century — that asks the Supreme Court to overturn Mississippi’s disenfranchisement for some felonies. The cases use different legal arguments, and the court rejected the most recent attempt in 2023.
The new appeal asks justices to reverse a July ruling from the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Mississippi legislators, not the courts, must decide whether to change the laws.
Stripping away voting rights for some crimes is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual punishment, the appeal argues. A majority of justices rejected arguments over cruel and unusual punishment in June when they cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places.
Attorneys who sued Mississippi over voting rights say the authors of the state’s 1890 constitution based disenfranchisement on a list of crimes they thought Black people were more likely to commit. A majority of the appeals judges wrote that the Supreme Court in 1974 reaffirmed constitutional law allowing states to disenfranchise felons.
About 38% of Mississippi residents are Black. Nearly 50,000 people were disenfranchised under the state’s felony voting ban between 1994 and 2017. More than 29,000 of them have completed their sentences, and about 58% of that group are Black, according to an expert who analyzed data for plaintiffs challenging the voting ban.
To regain voting rights in Mississippi, a person convicted of a disenfranchising crime must receive a governor’s pardon or win permission from two-thirds of the state House and Senate. In recent years, legislators have restored voting rights for only a few people.
The other recent case that went to the Supreme Court argued that authors of Mississippi’s constitution showed racist intent when they chose which felonies would cause people to lose the right to vote.
In that ruling, justices declined to reconsider a 2022 appeals court decision that said Mississippi remedied the discriminatory intent of the original provisions in the state constitution by later altering the list of disenfranchising crimes.
In 1950, Mississippi dropped burglary from the list. Murder and rape were added in 1968. The Mississippi attorney general issued an opinion in 2009 that expanded the list to 22 crimes, including timber larceny, carjacking, felony-level shoplifting and felony-level writing bad checks.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a 2023 dissent that Mississippi’s list of disenfranchising crimes was “adopted for an illicit discriminatory purpose.”
North Carolina
North Carolina has some of the highest STD rates nationwide, report says
NORTH CAROLINA (WBTV) – North Carolina has some of the highest STD rates nationwide, according to a new study by the U.S. News & World Report.
The report analyzed the highest combined rates of three major sexually transmitted infections: Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis.
As far as the 10 states with the highest STD rates, N.C. ranked No. 7.
The data
According to the report, the state’s total STD rate is 911.5 per 100,000. That has actually decreased by -0.3% since 2022.
Rates for the three major STDs are:
- Chlamydia: 607.9 per 100,000
- Gonorrhea: 243.2 per 100,000
- Syphilis (cumulative): 60.4 per 100,000
South Carolina
South Carolina also has some of the highest STD rates in America, according to the report.
Ranked at No. 8 for the 10 states with the highest STD rates, the state’s total STD rate is 882.8 per 100,000. That has decreased by 10.9% since 2022.
Rates for the three major STDs are:
- Chlamydia: 612.1 per 100,000
- Gonorrhea: 222.4 per 100,000
- Syphilis (cumulative): 48.3 per 100,000
WBTV Investigates: Syphilis Tsunami: NC health officials plan campaign to slow the spread
Copyright 2024 WBTV. All rights reserved.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma open primary proposal gets mixed reaction • Oklahoma Voice
OKLAHOMA CITY – A proposal to open Oklahoma primaries is drawing criticism.
Earlier this week, supporters announced State Question 835 that seeks to obtain 172,993 signatures to get the issue on the November 2026 ballot.
Under the proposal, Oklahoma primaries would be open to all voters with the top two vote getters advancing to the general election.
Supporters said they expect a challenge to the measure.
Gov. Kevin Stitt on social media voiced his opposition.
“Oklahomans made decisions at the polls that these third party groups don’t like – so now they want to upend the way we run our elections,” Stitt said. “Open primaries are a hard no in Oklahoma.”
Likewise, Lt. Gov Matt Pinnell, former Oklahoma Republican Party chairman, opposes the proposal.
“At best, the push to mandate open primaries is a solution in search of a problem, and at worst, it is a thinly veiled attempt to weaken Republican voters in choosing the nominees to represent our party,” Pinnell said. “Oklahoma is a conservative state, and Republicans hold all the statewide and federally elected positions and super majorities in the Legislature for a simple reason: our values and principles represent the will of our state voters.”
But not all Republicans have panned the idea.
Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt, a former Republican state senator, embraced it.
He said the system in which a mayor is elected allows all residents to vote.
“Our voters get to see all the candidates and our candidates have to face all voters,” Holt said. “As a result, our leadership delivers unity and consensus outcomes that are clearly moving us forward.”
The state question is being backed by Oklahoma United, a nonpartisan organization that says the change will increase voter participation, reduce polarization and force candidates to be responsive to all voters. It will also benefit independent voters, who can’t vote in Republican or Libertarian primaries. Democrats currently allow independents to vote in their primaries.
The idea is not new.
In 2017, the Oklahoma Academy recommended a top-two election system. Its report said a top-two system could increase turnout, reduce partisanship and “eliminate fringe special interest involvement in campaigns because candidates would be forced to respond to more moderate, general voters rather than play to the extremes of either party.”
The Oklahoma Academy is a nonpartisan group that works to educate Oklahomans about public policy.
Republican political consultant Fount Holland said he doubted Oklahoma voters would approve the proposal should it make the ballot.
“At the end of the day, it is about moderating the Republican primary,” Holland said.
He said the Republican Party takes things to the extreme, which is not the best way to govern.
Holland said no one enters the Republican primary as a moderate or very few can survive campaigning as a moderate.
“They might be moderate, but they don’t campaign that way,” Holland said.
He said he tells his clients to run to win.
If approved, the measure would be advantageous to Democrats or people who want a more moderate group of elected officials, Holland said.
Republican Superintendent Ryan Walters is considered by many to be ultra-conservative, while his predecessor Joy Hofmeister was considered a moderate member of the GOP, said Holland, who worked on her two successful races for superintendent.
Walters has focussed on putting Bibles in the classroom and removing some books from schools, while Hofmeister prioritized across-the-board teacher pay increases and boosting counseling services in schools.
Hofmeister ultimately switched parties and made an unsuccessful run as a Democrat for governor.
“If you hate politics the way they are, then you need to be on our team, because we want to change it and we want to make it better,” said Margaret Kobos, Oklahoma United CEO and Founder.
She was asked about the partisan reaction to the proposal.
She said it misses the point because the issue is about people and not political parties.
Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Del City, supports the measure, saying it takes power away from the political parties and gives it to the people.
“Every voter. Every election,” he said. “That is the way democracy is supposed to work.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
-
News1 week ago
Herbert Smith Freehills to merge with US-based law firm Kramer Levin
-
Business1 week ago
Column: OpenAI just scored a huge victory in a copyright case … or did it?
-
Health1 week ago
Bird flu leaves teen in critical condition after country's first reported case
-
Business5 days ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
World1 week ago
Sarah Palin, NY Times Have Explored Settlement, as Judge Sets Defamation Retrial
-
Politics4 days ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Science2 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Technology3 days ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI