A a federal judge on Thursday dismissed a defamation suit brought against Fox News host Tucker Carlson by former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleged having an affair with Donald Trump before he became president.
Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled against McDougal on grounds that Carlson regularly engages in “rhetorical hyperbole” and “opinion commentary”
Hopefully this does not set a precedent for someone else who regularly engages in rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary.
If you say stupid, inflammatory shit all the time, you can’t be held responsible for it any time.
Well thats a load of horse shit
Seems as if this ruling would exempt all of Fox News from lawsuits.
rhetorical hyperbole = invented bullshit
I wish the judge used basic language that EVERYONE understood. Deplorables don’t get four-syllable words. They don’t even understand “deplorable.”
A repost
“Given Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’” about the Fox News host’s claims, the judge added.
And this is where the judge went wrong. Hey Judge Vyskocil how many “reasonable viewers” are watching Tucker on Fox? Did you survey a sampling of regular Carlson viewer’s to come up this conclusion?
Judge: Carlson is a clown that no sentient being should take seriously.
Fox News: WOO HOO! We win.
Right there is the problem. They should not be allowed to claim they are “news” at all
This is like when pro wrestlers had to admit in a lawsuit they were actually pro clowns so they could get insured.
A ton of similarities all around.
“essentially arguing that Carlson’s comments on the show cannot be genuinely considered hard, factual news.”
ZING!
Hostile guests should memorize this and bring it up whenever he calls them liars.
So how does this decision affect the defamation lawsuits brought by the dumpster campaign and “underpants” Dershowitz against NY Times and CNN opinion pundits?
ETA: based on the article, it seems the core argument here is that “political opinions” can not be defamatory, by definition.
Actually, this is relying on the precedent set by Judge S James Otero who dismissed Stormy Daniels’s defamation suit against Trump on the same grounds.
In Monday’s decision from S James Otero, a federal judge in the central district of California, it was found that “Mr Trump’s statement constituted ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ that is protected by the first amendment.”
I take “rhetorical hyperbole” to be judge-speak for “complete and utter bullshit”.
Call me crazy but what I get from this judgement is that it’s fine to lie, smear, misquote and generally be an asshat on American Tee Vee.
America is lost…
I’m not sure if it was in this court case or another one they themselves described themselves as an “entertainment” operation.
“Given Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’”
Does this statement assume ‘facts’ not in evidence, Namely a significant fraction of Carlson’s audience is reasonable
We’re expecting people who vote for Trump to give half a shit about this?
Facially reasonable until you remember that POTUS actually relies on Carlson’s idiocy to formulate policy. The part that Trump & Co. will remember is that Carlson is immune for any damages his stupidity (or in their eyes, wisdom) inflicts.
A Trump appointee.