Not to mention that Maddow's comments were deemed to be protected under First Amendment because her lawyers argued she used hyperbole and exaggeration while discussing a demonstrably true news story.
Tucker Carlson is deemed to be protected under First Amendment because his lawyers argued his show and comments shouldn't be considered to be news or taken seriously in any way.
Not the direct comparison Celticfire thinks it is.
Which one went to court and got their lawyers to argue that what they said shouldn't be taken at face value first?
i have no idea. Did tucker claim to be just using hyperbole? do you have a link to the defence that tucker put forward?
Google works for everyone you know....
Carlsons case was from September 2020 whereas Maddows one was in August 2021
For clarity , the incidents challenged in the courts were from 2018 for Carlson and 2019 for Maddow - As is usual it took a while for the cases to get to court , but either way , Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson was 1st.
Therefore it should be henceforth know as the "Carlson defence"
From the judges ruling on the Tucker Carlson case, The Judge deemed it hyperbole.
The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate,
and, as such, are not actionable as defamation.
The only way to get to the truth is to watch them all. Facts that they all share you can be fairly certain are true but it’s telling when one side completely omits a story or the emotive language they use to report it, or when they just lie.
For example the story of Durhams report into The spying of Trump and the false claims of Russian collusion came out last Friday and wasn’t touched until earlier this week by left wing outlets. All the right wing outlets picked it up that friday, but the narrative of the left wing outlets was, ‘Durham causes a furor in right wing news outlets’, yeah only because cnn, msnbc et all tried to ignore it.
Remember Nicholas Sandman? All the left wing outlets lied about him and spread so much hate. They did the same with the Rittenhouse case. It was easy to see through the lies if you watched a network such as fox as well, there were so many duped by these left wing networks. They have no problem going after kids with lies, fabrications and falsehoods. The only person who reported the truth about Rittenhouse was Fox and they had the footage that even the lawyers in court didn’t have a year later. Going after a kid to further a political narrative is disgusting and evil.
link?
Nah, I'm not going to watch any of them tbh - I'm not g. I'll have a look on sites over this side of the pond for a bit of the news and I'll look on this thread every so often to see how far down the rabbit hole people are going. It's passing curiosity on my end and I'm not wasting hours of my life every day obsessing over details of minor scandals in the US that have zero impact on my life and usually end up being reduced to 'Gah, those darned lefties/right wingers are at it again!' or 'But Clinton/Trump/Biden did this which is worse' arguments.
There is no Durham report. The NY Times broke the news about the indictment change on the 15th and the RW press, led by some fabricated crap from Kash Patel, ran with a fake story conflating what had been done with the nonexistant report. The indictment doesn't mention 'espionage' or 'spying' or any of that. But still you persist in the lies.
You can go back in this thread and read the Times article where I excerpted it.
BTW, what exactly did the Washington Post include in their opinion piece about the Times article? I believe I asked you directly about that since you seem to have access to the WaPo which I do not.
McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) :: Justia
Except that's not how it works. Judges ruling are what count. I'm afraid Rachel Anne Maddow got her ruling first (May 22 2020 v Sept 23 2020) so it's only fitting that it stays as the "Maddow" defence.
Nice try using August 2021 for Maddows case but that was an appeal court ruling.
there was no precedent set in either ruling. dont use words you don't understand. as Penn already said the two defences were not the same.
And yet the outcomes were essentially the same. Hyperbole all around. Except Maddow got there first.
doesn't matter if the outcome was the same. the outcome didn't set any precedent and they put up different defences.
Yep, both essentially saying the same thing, that what they say is opinion and hyperbole.
nah, not true. Tucker said he was purely for entertainment and should never be taken seriously and Maddow said that in that instance she was speaking with hyperbole and should not be taken seriously IN THAT INSTANCE only. those two things are not the same.
I'll go with the court document not your hyperbole.
Fox News again moved to dismiss. The motion argues that when read in context, Mr. Carlson’s statements “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts” and that the Amended Complaint fails to allege actual malice.
Now you can show me where he said he "was purely for entertainment and should never be taken seriously"
You haven't a clue what you're talking about here. The outcomes being the same doesn't mean the legal argument was the same.
You've been told this 6 or so times.
It's not the gotcha you think it is.
Your inability to discern differences makes you a fantastic candidate for a trump supporter.
I've all ready had that pointed out and addressed the issue. But thank you for your dig.
Anyway, enough nonsense about Maddow/Carlson/Reid, here's some actual news:
Speaking of court cases
https://twitter.com/meehawl/status/1494373514194800641?t=LRSyIXjUa2jPyxTwDwWnUw&s=19
“Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump must all comply with this court order and testify before my office within 21 days.
No one is above the law.”
From the New York attorney generals Twitter account.
No wonder they were screaming about Hillary.
Junior will be hitting the bag hard for that 😎
No change so.
Either he talks or he pleads the Fifth...
"You see the mob takes the Fifth," he said during one rally in Iowa. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
Guess he's going to talk then 😉
Apparently they can appeal it.
Would you be happy for him to talk and then get the immunity that he's entitled to according to his lawyer?
“If he goes in and follows my advice, which will be you cannot answer these questions without ... immunity because that’s what the law provides,
This is the same man that was seen holding a preference outside a sex shop saying that the election was stolen, with zero proof. If you believe anything he says, you're a bigger fool than you currently appear.
Why would they give trump immunity from his own crimes?
Trump’s lawyers told Engoron during the hearing that having him sit for a civil deposition now, while his company is also the subject of a parallel criminal investigation, is an improper attempt to get around a state law barring prosecutors from calling someone to testify before a criminal grand jury without giving them immunity.
I'm not the lawyer here. I just asked a simple question. I'm sure this point will be brought up on appeal.
“Furthermore, New York prosecutors do not call the subjects of their criminal investigations to testify before grand juries about their suspected criminal conduct without first securing an immunity waiver.”
The judge quashed that particular argument already. Donnie's lawyers were either deliberately obtuse or misunderstood the law. Wouldn't be the first time.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86b2bf519a78c14958c9040117dc4dc1.svg)
