Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against Fox News Over Coronavirus Coverage
Last edited Thu May 28, 2020, 07:56 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: Deadline, via Erik Wemple
Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against Fox News Over Coronavirus Coverage
By Ted Johnson
May 27, 2020 12:05pm
A Washington state judge has tossed out a public interest group's lawsuit against Fox News, claiming that the network violated consumer protection laws via its coronavirus coverage.
The Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics, or WASH LITE, sued the network in early April, claiming that its coverage violated the state's consumer protection laws by engaging in a "campaign of deception and omission regarding the danger of the international proliferation of the novel coronavirus." Also named in the lawsuit were parent Fox Corp. and two channel distributors, AT&T and Comcast, as well as Rupert Murdoch.
Judge Brian McDonald wrote that the public interest group's "professed goal in this lawsuit -- to ensure that the public receives accurate information about the coronavirus and COVID-19 -- is laudable. However, the means employed here, a [consumer protection] claim against a cable news channel, runs afoul of the protections of the First Amendment."
In its motion to dismiss, Fox News outlined instances where where its hosts warned of the severity of the crisis. The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and NCTA -- The Internet & Television Association filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the network.
{snip}
Read more: https://deadline.com/2020/05/coronavirus-fox-news-sean-hannity-trish-regan-1202944193/
I don't want to hear any complaints. If 1A doesn't protect Fox News, it doesn't protect anyone. This isn't a popularity contest.
Hat tip, Erik Wemple
A Washington state judge has dismissed the lawsuit by nonprofit group WashLITE against Fox News over coronavirus coverage. Complaint runs afoul of the First Amendment, ruled the judge.
Link to tweet
sandensea
(21,639 posts)Or, should I say, a disappointee.
onenote
(42,715 posts)There was no way that lawsuit had any chance to survive given the first amendment. As a unanimous Supreme Court said over 45 years ago, A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated. Miami Herald v. Tornillo, 418 US 241 (1974)
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)First amendment shouldn't protect lying, fear mongering or gaslighting. Just mho tho.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)not too long ago.
onenote
(42,715 posts)In 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court stated that A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated. Miami Herald v Tornillo, 418 US 241 (1974).
certainot
(9,090 posts)all those stations need to lose their licenses but the FCC won't do it
they need to be sued by survivors in a class action suit
Jedi Guy
(3,193 posts)As OP said, either the First Amendment protects everyone, or it protects no one. You don't get to muzzle them just because you hate them.
certainot
(9,090 posts)all other media forms liberals complain about have alternatives a click away. the main problem and the one liberals and dems ignore, rw radio, does not. in most parts of the us there are no free easy alts for politics. unfortunately progressive leadership lives in cities and have no clue.
does the first amendment cover shouting HOAX! in a covid theater? while some discussion can be had about the right not to believe 98% of scientists are correct about global warming and it's okay for EVERY RW radio host to have to deny global warming, is there any reason to allow a 95% talk radio monopoly on stations licensed to operate in the public interest to tell 50 mil a week for 2 months that COVID is a liberal hoax?
you can't keep free speech or net neutrality while ignoring and allowing what the US military psyops manual would call a classic propaganda operation disinform 50 mil a week with coordinated messaging used to destroy that freedom
it's clear the republican FCC won't fix this and it's been the biggest political mistake in history that democrats and liberals ignore talk radio. all the advertisers on those stations need to be boycotted until the only ones left say they support trump, global warming and covid denial - because that's what they're supporting
been hearing it's just free speech for 30 years while democracy falls apart and democrats blame symptoms. city-dwelling free speech purists help push the idiocy that that monopoly is just an expression of market demand, the talkers on it are just entertainers expressing political views people want to hear, and the fairness doctrine was a mistake.
the recent article here is one of very very few putting any blame on talk radio while the left chases its tail and blames symptoms like fox, or money in politics, or voter suppression, or media consolidation - all of which democracy was designed to regulate/fix but can't because we let 1500 unchallenged coordinated radio stations blast the country with corporate-coordinated messaging for 30 years
and it should be clear that putin has been using his version of Voice of America at least since 2008
Jedi Guy
(3,193 posts)My point from my previous comment stands, despite all the ranting.
certainot
(9,090 posts)is okay? on stations licensed to operate in the public interest?
my point is it doesn't matter what a supreme court says because it will never get there.
the tragedy is americans think they can support free speech and have a democracy while ignoring rw talk radio - these are the consequences now
Jedi Guy
(3,193 posts)That phrase was part of a 1909 SCOTUS case involving a "clear and present danger" posed by the speech in question. It was replaced 60 years later with the test being refined to determine whether the speech would provoke "imminent lawless action."
Unfortunately for your argument it does matter what SCOTUS thinks. And if it doesn't matter what the court says, why are you using what it said to bolster your argument? Oh right, because you like it even though it's wrong.
certainot
(9,090 posts)and a new Fairness Doctrine impossible.
that is why ignoring it and expecting free speech and net neutrality and demonopolization of media is so uselesss and pointless until rw radio is fixed.
that is why democrats have to stop ignoring it and use free speech means to destroy that dominant propaganda monopoly whether you believe corporations are people, money is free speech or not, and democrats are importing millions of illegal aliens to vote for them or not..
all other reforms and reregulation democrats and progressives want will be much easier if americans force the ad industry to democratize talk radio and 1500 coordinated radio stations aren't all yelling in chorus, for instance, about the thugs in minneapolis, the dem officials let all this happen, trump should get special counsel to investigate the obama admin, the voting was rigged, and so on.
it reallly doesnt matter what you or i think about the limits of free speech are or should be, whether media monopolies like in radio should be considered part of the free speech spectrum, or what the SCOTUS would do, but it does matter if we keep letting ignorant racist lying suicidal shits like limbaugh yell over millions of informed citizens, protestors, activists, create and manage made-to-order pro-corporate constituencies for billionaire and russian think tanks, and decide who is and isn't acceptable in the senate, the supremes, and the white house, merely because they are loud.
dware
(12,411 posts)There is no license to pull, as there is no license to broadcast over cable or satellite, and the FCC has zero authority over cable or satellite.
A Class Action Suit would also fail in the courts, it would run afoul of the 1A.
certainot
(9,090 posts)it's clear the FCC won't do it.
does the first amendment cover shouting HOAX! in a covid theater? while some discussion can be had about the right not to believe 98% of scientists are correct about global warming and it's okay for EVERY RW radio host to have to deny global warming, is there any reason to allow a 95% talk radio monopoly on stations licensed to operate in the public interest to tell 50 mil a week for 2 months that COVID is a liberal hoax?
a 1000 -1500 stations out there with podcasts and other recording available that would show with very few exceptions all their talkers followed the limbaugh lead calling it a hoax for 2 months, enabling trump and causing many 1000s more deaths.
been hearing it's just free speech for 30 years while democracy falls apart and democrats blame symptoms and free speech purists helped push the idiocy that that monopoly is just an expression of market demand, the talkers on it are just entertainers expressing political views people want to hear, and the fairness doctrine was a mistake.
you can't keep free speech or net neutrality while ignoring and allowing what the military psyops manual calls a classic propaganda operation disinform 50 mil a week with coordinated messaging used to destroy that freedom
and it should be clear that putin has been using his version of Voice of America at least since 2008
louis-t
(23,295 posts)Another judge already determined that.
onenote
(42,715 posts)But it lived on in the minds of many DUers
samsingh
(17,599 posts)like i heard sean hannity murdered 5 prostitutes?
ProfessorGAC
(65,078 posts)From what some people are saying, that's far too low.
While "public" figures have a steep hill to prove libel, the key is if you know/knew acted
with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY v. (1964).
Trample the 1st Amendment at your peril.
Jedi Guy
(3,193 posts)oldsoftie
(12,558 posts)PUBLIC opinion is much more damaging than a ourt judgement anyway
OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)articles over the past year.