6 ms·

I agree 100% when it comes to billionaires “settling” their way out of criminal prosecution, but if two private groups have a dispute they shouldn’t be forced t

I agree 100% when it comes to billionaires “settling” their way out of criminal prosecution, but if two private groups have a dispute they shouldn’t be forced to litigate it all the way through trial if they can come to an agreement outside of court.

fknorangesite 4y ago
In a vacuum I agree with you; but when it's election interference, with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup...I am not so sure.
- forkerenok 4y ago
  > with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup In my understanding, if this is a grave concern, then it's the federal prosecutor that should press charges. I assume DVS were simply suing as a business for damages. Edit: wording to clarify the point
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
conductr 4y ago
The real injustice is that “news” can do what Fox did, and it doesn’t constitute a crime. At a minimum, They should lose their broadcast license if they are going to manufacture truth that threatens democracy.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Minor nitpick: FNN is a cable channel and thus does not require a license. however they're in the middle of renegotiating their fees with the cable companies, so if you are a cable customer and hate Rupert Murdoch, now is a good time to get on the phone with your cable company and whine about how you don't want to pay for Fox News as part of the basic package.
  - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
    So none of the BS was broadcast over public airwaves by Fox?
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Correct.
- runnerup 4y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. I said exactly this to my friend earlier today. However, I immediately followed it up noting that any law like this will eventually be used maliciously. E.g. Party in power will say “CNN LIES!” and get DOJ to set up a sham trial. But even if it shouldn’t be possible for the ruling political party to infringe on free speech, it should also not be tenable to lie to millions of Americans this blatantly.
  - conductr 3y ago
    It should be a law that’s hard to prove, like libel or something similar (not a legal expert). Or, laws specifically regarding elections (and maybe a few other matters). Even if they were forced to disclose their known misstatements (lies) publicly in someway that might help them collectively keep each other in honest. It might be similar to how public companies are required to have audits and report their results and whatnot. We in the public get information to help us determine what the truth is regarding stocks. Honestly just like the deregulation of finance introducing risks to banks and resulting Great Recession, the deregulation of fairness doctrine and other things are equally at fault for things like this happening IMO. We’re letting history repeat when we forget why such regulations were instituted to begin with.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Disagree, I think that moderately early on in the process parties need to make a decision about settle or litigate. What we have now is a system where people are incentivized to bluff endlessly, treating litigation like high-stakes poker. Even those with no legal education can see it's bullshit, and it brings the entire legal system into disrepute.
- singleshot_ 4y ago
  What does getting whacked with a $787,500,000.00 settlement payment incentivize newscorp to do? I get the feeling next time they feel like bluffing, someone over there might bring up the three quarters of a billion dollars that they just burned. I mean I get that this incentivizes plaintiffs to sue when they think they’re getting screwed but… isn’t that a good thing? (That is, isn’t that the whole point of the tort system?)
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    What I mean is they keep bluffing up until the literal commencement of the trial. The legal process, once underway, should not be treated as an extension of the political poker table.

fknorangesite 4y ago

In a vacuum I agree with you; but when it's election interference, with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup...I am not so sure.

forkerenok 4y ago
> with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup In my understanding, if this is a grave concern, then it's the federal prosecutor that should press charges. I assume DVS were simply suing as a business for damages. Edit: wording to clarify the point
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

conductr 4y ago

The real injustice is that “news” can do what Fox did, and it doesn’t constitute a crime. At a minimum, They should lose their broadcast license if they are going to manufacture truth that threatens democracy.

anigbrowl 4y ago
Minor nitpick: FNN is a cable channel and thus does not require a license. however they're in the middle of renegotiating their fees with the cable companies, so if you are a cable customer and hate Rupert Murdoch, now is a good time to get on the phone with your cable company and whine about how you don't want to pay for Fox News as part of the basic package.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
  So none of the BS was broadcast over public airwaves by Fox?
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Correct.
runnerup 4y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. I said exactly this to my friend earlier today. However, I immediately followed it up noting that any law like this will eventually be used maliciously. E.g. Party in power will say “CNN LIES!” and get DOJ to set up a sham trial. But even if it shouldn’t be possible for the ruling political party to infringe on free speech, it should also not be tenable to lie to millions of Americans this blatantly.
- conductr 3y ago
  It should be a law that’s hard to prove, like libel or something similar (not a legal expert). Or, laws specifically regarding elections (and maybe a few other matters). Even if they were forced to disclose their known misstatements (lies) publicly in someway that might help them collectively keep each other in honest. It might be similar to how public companies are required to have audits and report their results and whatnot. We in the public get information to help us determine what the truth is regarding stocks. Honestly just like the deregulation of finance introducing risks to banks and resulting Great Recession, the deregulation of fairness doctrine and other things are equally at fault for things like this happening IMO. We’re letting history repeat when we forget why such regulations were instituted to begin with.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Disagree, I think that moderately early on in the process parties need to make a decision about settle or litigate. What we have now is a system where people are incentivized to bluff endlessly, treating litigation like high-stakes poker. Even those with no legal education can see it's bullshit, and it brings the entire legal system into disrepute.

singleshot_ 4y ago
What does getting whacked with a $787,500,000.00 settlement payment incentivize newscorp to do? I get the feeling next time they feel like bluffing, someone over there might bring up the three quarters of a billion dollars that they just burned. I mean I get that this incentivizes plaintiffs to sue when they think they’re getting screwed but… isn’t that a good thing? (That is, isn’t that the whole point of the tort system?)
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  What I mean is they keep bluffing up until the literal commencement of the trial. The legal process, once underway, should not be treated as an extension of the political poker table.