That’s what CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates told Erin Burnett on Thursday night when discussing Smartmatic’s $ 2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, three of the network’s presenters (Lou Dobbs , Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro), Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.
“When you make statements that are intentionally false, and make them with malice, and actually damage the reputation and that has a financial consequence – that’s why you have defamation lawsuits in the first place,” said Coates, explaining the seriousness of the lawsuit.
Coates is not alone in believing that the Smartmatic suit poses a real threat to Fox. Jonathan Peters, professor of media law at the University of Georgia
annotated on Twitter that “the defamation law makes it difficult to prevail when the plaintiff is a public figure and / or where the speech involves a matter of public interest. In many ways, these will be key issues in litigation”. But Peters added that he believes “smart money” is in Smartmatic.
That appeared to be the general consensus among the legal experts who commented on the case on Thursday. Although Fox described the process as “without merit”, Powell called it a “political maneuver” and Giuliani said he expected to be discovered, most legal experts believe the process has some influence. “This lawsuit is a legitimate threat – a real threat,” said CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig. “There is a real tooth in this.” And Roy Gutterman, who runs the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, echoed to WaPo: “This complaint establishes a compelling narrative over 270 pages. It will certainly be interesting to see how the defendants structure their responses.”
This is not an uncomfortable suit
Brian Stelter writes: “Defamation lawsuits against media organizations are usually filed on a slippery slope. Journalists have good reason to be concerned about these types of cases. And troublesome lawsuits against newsrooms are a real problem. But I think it’s safe to say that the action of Smartmatic against Fox is not a cumbersome process and has little to do with news. It will be difficult for Fox to wrap its hosts in a press freedom banner. This case is about artists who fueled lies in a desperate attempt to keep Trump in power. “
“Disinformation has a free rein now”
When I spoke with Smartmatic’s lawyer, Erik Connolly, of the “pink slime” fame, about the case, I pressed him on whether he was concerned that his lawsuit could set a precedent that could end up undermining press freedom. His response was that the process would be really beneficial for legitimate news organizations. “I think it’s the type of case that must be brought up right now to try to steer us away from misinformation,” said Connolly. “Disinformation has a free rein now. This type of case can be a straight shot that the courts can offer that says, ‘Let’s get back to reality. Let’s go back to the factual account. ‘
A world of people “telling lies”
Stelter writes: “I was impressed by something that Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer representing author E. Jean Carroll, told the NYT. Carroll is suing Trump for defamation. Kaplan ‘stated that the profusion of defamation circumstances associated with the previous president was notable. , “since there is a perception that such cases are difficult to win.” What has changed, “said Kaplan,” and why we are seeing so many defamation cases today than before, is because, frankly, we live in a world in that people with legitimacy and authority seem to feel no remorse at just telling blatant lies. ‘In part, that’s why other legal experts are saying that Smartmatic has a strong case – the lies are explicit and easily unmasked. that it may not be so difficult to prove that Fox and its hosts knew, or should have known, that they were telling lies – which is the ‘real malice’ standard that public figures must comply with in cases defamation … “
Lies have consequences
It is crucial to point out the consequences that the large number of conspiracy theories against Smartmatic have had for the company. In its process, Smartmatic detailed some of the ramifications: a wave of threats against its employees, a “meteoric rise” in cyber attacks and hundreds of millions of dollars in projected revenue losses. CEO and founder Antonio Mugica told me that “there was no choice” that the company had but to open the case. “The disinformation campaign that was launched against us is an obliterating one. For us, this is existential and we have to act ”.
.Source
Related
