In dismissing libel suit, judge accepts FOX argument: Tucker Carlson exaggerates & bloviates - devoid of any expectation of fact
-
Back in 2020, Fox was sued for slander by Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model whom Tucker Carlson had accused of extorting hush-money from Donald Trump.
The facts are that she had never contacted Trump, or his associates, about any payments - instead, receiving payment from David Pecker - owner of the National Enquirer - who paid for her "story" solely so he could quash it.
In defending Carlson, Fox's own lawyers stated:
- Carlson's comments were "loose, figurative or hyperbolic"
- Cited an earlier court finding where a nonjournalist's use of the word "extort," proved nondefamatory because it was mere "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet." (Essentially: Tucker Carlson is not a journalist)
- Cited another earlier precedent where Don Imus won a case more than two decades ago because an appellate court ruled that "the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade."
More damning: the PLAITIFF alleged in a brief that "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show ... would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money" and that "the statements about [her] were fact." - But, the Fox lawyers responded to that claim - quoting here: "that the reasonable viewer would do no such thing."
For the record: the judge agreed & dismissed the lawsuit.
Tucker Carlson is a bloviating, exaggerating, hyperbolic caricature of a journalist... but he is, nevertheless, a primary source of "fact" for many of the Trumpites you see here and elsewhere...
I can therefore... legally... claim and infer that they are not "reasonable" people!
-
@bi4smooth said in In dismissing libel suit, judge accepts FOX argument: Tucker Carlson exaggerates & bloviates - devoid of any expectation of fact:
Tucker Carlson is a bloviating, exaggerating, hyperbolic caricature of a journalist... but he is, nevertheless, a primary source of "fact" for many of the Trumpites you see here and elsewhere...
That is your opinion not a "fact". Trumpites again is not a word and what does Trump have to do with Tucker Carlson?
Carlson is not even a supporter of Trump. Carlson sometimes go a bit far but most of what he says ends up being truth unlike the MSM that will lie about anything that supports their brief.
Maybe if you watched his show instead of reading the MSM cliff notes you would expand your knowledge a bit.
I can therefore... legally... claim and infer that they are not "reasonable" people!
Are we back to the Hillary Clinton Deplorables comment? Attorneys try every angle to get their client's point across. I think the Judge dismissed the case based on the merits not by any single statement of the attorney.
-
Again, Ms Feng Feng only like Repubs that are Pelosi Repubs.
Let's not forget that Ms Feng Feng's news sources said that Kyle Rittenhouse killed 3 black men in Chicago. I haven't found where she got the Chicago bit, but the "killed 3 black men" part I can trace back to Joy Reid (a proven liar), The Root (a proven liar), Salon (a proven liar), and Slate (a proven liar). They are proven liars even excluding their lies about Kyle Rittenhouse. We can also trace some of it to black-tivist guests on CNN who weren't corrected.
-
@geobear40 said in In dismissing libel suit, judge accepts FOX argument: Tucker Carlson exaggerates & bloviates - devoid of any expectation of fact:
@bi4smooth said in In dismissing libel suit, judge accepts FOX argument: Tucker Carlson exaggerates & bloviates - devoid of any expectation of fact:
Tucker Carlson is a bloviating, exaggerating, hyperbolic caricature of a journalist... but he is, nevertheless, a primary source of "fact" for many of the Trumpites you see here and elsewhere...
That is your opinion not a "fact". Trumpites again is not a word and what does Trump have to do with Tucker Carlson?
Carlson is not even a supporter of Trump. Carlson sometimes go a bit far but most of what he says ends up being truth unlike the MSM that will lie about anything that supports their brief.
Maybe if you watched his show instead of reading the MSM cliff notes you would expand your knowledge a bit.
I can therefore... legally... claim and infer that they are not "reasonable" people!
Are we back to the Hillary Clinton Deplorables comment? Attorneys try every angle to get their client's point across. I think the Judge dismissed the case based on the merits not by any single statement of the attorney.
Follow the link - the Judge's rationale for dismissing the suit was well laid out: to bring a libel case successfully, you have to show that a reasonable person would believe them! Thus, you cannot sue the town fool for libel! (That's a little "closer to home" than I intended, but if the shoe fits!) LOL
Hillary wasn't ever prosecuted for her "deplorables" comment (except in the court of public opinion) - at least not that I know of! So, "This ain't that"
