Global Courant 2023-05-18 17:29:02
Members of the public wait to enter the Leonard Williams Justice Center, where the Dominion Voting Systems defamation trial against FOX News is taking place April 18 in Wilmington, Delaware. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images)
The court is back in session after a lunch break and opening statements expected to start soon in the landmark libel lawsuit brought by election technology company Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.
Here’s what you need to know about the high stakes case:
Why is Dominion suing Fox News? Lordship sued Fox News in 2021 about the right-wing network’s repeated promotion of false claims about the company, including that its voting machines rigged the 2020 election by flipping millions of ballots from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. Most of the 20 alleged defamatory broadcasts cited in the lawsuit took place in November and December 2020.
The company claims that people at Fox News acted with genuine malice and “recklessly ignored the truth” when they spread this disinformation about Dominion. To prove “true malice”, Dominion must convince a jury that the people at Fox News responsible for these 20 broadcasts knew that the Dominion’s claims were false or recklessly ignored evidence of falsehood – but put them in the air Anyway.
According to Dominion’s theory of the matter, Fox promoted these election conspiracy theories because “the lies were good for Fox’s business”. Dominion’s suit specifically targeted Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Jeanine Pirro shows. Dominion said that as a result of Fox’s “orchestrated defamatory campaign” it has suffered “enormous and irreparable economic damage” and that its employees are subject to death threats and intimidation.
What is Fox’s defense? Fox said no one was defamed and the case is a creditable attack on press freedom.
A Fox spokesperson has said that the network is “proud of our coverage of the 2020 election” and that the coverage is “in the highest tradition of American journalism.” The company said, “Dominion’s lawsuit is a political crusade in search of a financial windfall, but the real cost would be cherished First Amendment rights.”
Fox has also accused Dominion of causing “a fuss and confusion” around the case, stating that “the core of this case continues to be about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights granted by the Constitution.” especially the First Amendment.
Fox has tried to get the lawsuit off the table. But in a major blow to the right-wing network last month, the judge overseeing the case has allowed it to go to trial. He also has forbidden fox from invoking some key First Amendment defenses, to finding them unfounded.
What is Dominion asking for? Dominion is seeking $1.6 billion in damages. They say Fox’s on-air lies have destroyed his reputation and are causing election officials to cancel their Dominion contracts. CNN recently reported about the growing mistrust of voting machines in heavily Republican counties.
What is the trial logistics? The trial is expected to last five to six weeks and will be overseen by Delaware Supreme Court Justice Eric M. Davis, who was appointed to the state bench by a Democratic governor in 2012. A panel of 12 judges and 12 alternates takes their seats.
Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom and no videos will be taken of the proceedings. There will also be no still images in the courtroom.
Who is expected to testify? Expected witnesses include Fox Corporation executives Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch; Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and President Jay Wallace; prominent TV hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Bret Baier, among other things.
Dominion said it could also call Viet Dinh, Fox’s chief legal officer, and former House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Fox board member, to the witness stand.
Both sides also hope to provide testimony from their hand-picked experts who specialize in election statistics, voting machine security, journalistic ethics, the impact of disinformation in public discourse and more.
Read more about the case here.
