Fox News sued for spreading misinformation to the public

[HomerJS]

It's about fucking time. Here's how to enforce. Remove the following hosts from the air

Sean Hannity
Laura Ingraham
Jessie Waters
Tucker Carlson (maybe because he did push back against other hosts earlier)
Entire cast of Fox and Friends
Jeanine Pirro
Maria Bartaromo (not sure about her)

Go back and review spreading misinformation when the truth was known. Maybe we can mitigate a lot of the rightwing conspiracy theories whch are dangerous to the country. Hold Fox News accountable for their misinformation.

Millions of People Get Coronavirus Updates From Fox News – This Lawsuit Says the Network Gave Them False Information

Fox News is facing intense scrutiny for its initial coverage of the coronavirus pandemic and a lawsuit filed in Washington is asking a state court to bar the network from sharing false information about the pandemic.The top-rated network was sued Thursday by the Washington League for Increased...

www.yahoo.com

 

[ivwshane]

I hope fox loses but I won’t keep my hopes up.

I do see this as simply being more ammo for the right to use for their victim hood.

 

[woolfe9998]

Lawsuit does not seek money damages. It seeks an injunction to prohibit them for giving any more false information about the virus. Which I think is unprecedented.

I doubt it will succeed.

 

[Saylick]

The 1st Amendment doesn't cover speech that presents a "clear and present" danger to the public. I'd argue that spreading misinformation falls under the same category as falsely yelling "fire" in a theater, or in this case, falsely yelling "Stay calm and sit down! There is no fire!" when there's black smoking billowing in and people are starting to cough.

So yeah, Fox ought to be sued. I wonder if half the American population, i.e. the half that actually believe the coronavirus isn't a hoax, can get in on this as a class action lawsuit.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Personally, I'd wish for all those FOX people and all the Trump inner-circle to be barred from ever holding a job in the US of A for anything other than cleaning up kiddie-puke in public school hallways.

If that pipe dream were realized, they'd actually have something to feel proud of. I'm not even sure I want to allow them that, either.

 

[shortylickens]

this is BS posturing. the law suit will fail.
they will never change their stripes.

 

[woolfe9998]

The 1st Amendment doesn't cover speech that presents a "clear and present" danger to the public. I'd argue that spreading misinformation falls under the same category as falsely yelling "fire" in a theater, or in this case, falsely yelling "Stay calm and sit down! There is no fire!" when there's black smoking billowing in and people are starting to cough.

So yeah, Fox ought to be sued. I wonder if half the American population, i.e. the half that actually believe the coronavirus isn't a hoax, can get in on this as a class action lawsuit.

Clear and present danger is not the applicable legal standard, and shouting fire in a crowded room is legally out of date. The standard now is incitement to "imminent lawless action." I don't think anything like that applies here unless Fox was explicitly encouraging people to ignore stay at home orders.

 

[Saylick]

Clear and present danger is not the applicable legal standard, and shouting fire in a crowded room is legally out of date. The standard now is incitement to "imminent lawless action." I don't think anything like that applies here unless Fox was explicitly encouraging people to ignore stay at home orders.

Obviously IANAL but if what you wrote is true, that's unfortunate in this situation.

So if people die from taking Fox News' advice about that drug that helps fight COVID-19, they can't be sued?

 

[Ajay]

Obviously IANAL but if what you wrote is true, that's unfortunate in this situation.

So if people die from taking Fox News' advice about that drug that helps fight COVID-19, they can't be sued?

I think what would be needed is internal memos/emails etc. highlighting that they knew their advice was BS and that people would die - but they went ahead with the bogus reporting anyway. Sort of like what has happened with many chemical and tobacco companies.

 

[Greenman]

Nice piece of grandstanding that will go nowhere.

 

[Ajay]

Nice piece of grandstanding that will go nowhere.

You're probably right. Fox being morons is far more likely than malice.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I think what would be needed is internal memos/emails etc. highlighting that they knew their advice was BS and that people would die - but they went ahead with the bogus reporting anyway. Sort of like what has happened with many chemical and tobacco companies.

IIRC fox was taking precautions in its offices while people on air were downplaying the nature of the virus.
You'd have to establish a nice timeline of internal communications vs. broadcast programming, and, depending on the nature of the suit, demonstrate harm. Otherwise, I imagine the suit could dismissed for not having standing.
IANAL

 

[Brainonska511]

Clear and present danger is not the applicable legal standard, and shouting fire in a crowded room is legally out of date. The standard now is incitement to "imminent lawless action." I don't think anything like that applies here unless Fox was explicitly encouraging people to ignore stay at home orders.

That might be the standard now, but given enough dead bodies and changes in public sentiment, the interpretation of the law could shift under the feet of Fox News.

 

[woolfe9998]

That might be the standard now, but given enough dead bodies and changes in public sentiment, the interpretation of the law could shift under the feet of Fox News.

I highly doubt that this SCOTUS is going to change a precedent which has been applicable for decades to penalize Fox News.

 

[woolfe9998]

Obviously IANAL but if what you wrote is true, that's unfortunate in this situation.

So if people die from taking Fox News' advice about that drug that helps fight COVID-19, they can't be sued?

Because of the 1A, courts have almost always held that there is no legal "duty" of reasonable care on the part of news broadcasters toward listeners. Which tends to preclude a negligence claim. A plaintiff could allege fraud which doesn't have 1A protection, but it is almost impossible to prove that the broadcaster intended that the listener rely on the false statements to his detriment. Ordinarily news outlets intend only that people watch and listen, bolstering their ratings. Proving that they intended specific action on the part of viewers is nigh impossible. Which is why I said earlier you would need a segment where they are telling people to ignore lockdown orders.

Ironically, the closest anyone has come to this is the litigious Devin Nunes, telling people it's a great time to eat at restaurants because it's easy to get a table now! Still, even in that case, a plaintiff would have to prove he listened to Nunes, believed him, went out, and as a direct result, caught the virus. You'd also have to prove Nunes knew that the advise was dangerous, that he's malevolent, not just a moron. Very hard to prove.

 

[fskimospy]

That might be the standard now, but given enough dead bodies and changes in public sentiment, the interpretation of the law could shift under the feet of Fox News.

Be careful what you wish for, conservatives are already trying to weaponize the legal system against news organizations that report things they don’t like.

 

[Greenman]

You're probably right. Fox being morons is far more likely than malice.

Irrelevant.

 

[ivwshane]

My hope is that cable companies stop carrying fox as part of their basic package and make it an add on like other entertainment networks.

 

[ch33zw1z]

lol, Greenman all sore.

 

[eelw]

Fire all the opinion hosts and bring back Sheppard Smith. Wonder when his non compete clause expires so he can join another channel?

 

[UberNeuman]

lol, Greenman all sore.

Change of pace from "huhwhatidon'tknow." lol.

 

[HomerJS]

Lawsuit does not seek money damages. It seeks an injunction to prohibit them for giving any more false information about the virus. Which I think is unprecedented.

I doubt it will succeed.

I must have heard the word "unprecedented" at least 500 times during this administration.

What's one more?

 

[HomerJS]

Nice piece of grandstanding that will go nowhere.

Considering the consequences isn't this a good faith attempt? Despite the possibility of the spectacular?

 

[HomerJS]

Clear and present danger is not the applicable legal standard, and shouting fire in a crowded room is legally out of date. The standard now is incitement to "imminent lawless action." I don't think anything like that applies here unless Fox was explicitly encouraging people to ignore stay at home orders.

Really? So I could yell the following in a crowded theater...

Fire
Shooter

and suffer no legal consequences?? Find that hard to believe.

 

[brycejones]

Irrelevant.

😂