Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 308 posts

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#151

Post by unrealhoang »

bradleybuda wrote: post #22
alistairSH wrote: post #2

~1/3 of their annual revenue. Not nothing, but likely small enough that it’s just a cost of doing business and not a real deterrent. IMO.

This kind of comment comes up a lot On The Internet and it tells me that the commenter has never worked at a company that has lost a massive lawsuit. As someone who has worked at one of those companies, I can tell you that losing a suit like this will absolutely lead to huge operational changes to avoid it happening again. Whether or not those changes actually change the "character" of the company is a different ques…

> no company anywhere would just shrug something like this off as "the cost of doing business".

Fox News did, they lost 10 times as much money and is more successful than ever BECAUSE they did it, so for them it's just "the cost of doing business" or even an "investment".

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#152

Post by platevoltage »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #32
kg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we really want to increase turnout, we can just make voting mandatory like other countries have. Requiring ID is a problem given that a lot of people don't have easy access (or access at all) to legal ID, for various reasons, some as simple as cost. Having a license costs money on an ongoing basis and you need to have access to documents to prove your identity like a birth certificate, and some citizens don't have…

I feel that forcing people to vote is more authoritarian than democratic. Places like North Korea have something like 99.5% turnouts for elections. One of the advantages of living in a democratic society is the freedom to choose not to participate in it, so long as this doesn't affect others. The idea just rubs me the wrong way. I understand America is somewhat unusual among most Western nations that lots of people d…

I think in any compulsary voting system, you should be allowed to select "none of the above". That would be fine with me.

I fear that uninformed people will just fill in the bubbles though, and then you start getting votes based on name recognition only, and thats already a big enough issue.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#153

Post by mrangle »

FireBeyond wrote: post #131
mrangle wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compulsory voting is what regimes do when their government is so obviously corrupt that a strong voter turnout is the only thing left that lends an air of democracy. Most often suggested if flagging voter turnout might be seen as a possible public indictment of the system's democratic legitimacy. Now we can't have that sort of protest. The People will be enthusiastic! lol.

Ahh, Australia, "so obviously corrupt" that mandatory voting is the only thing that lends an air of democracy. I love this notion that the US is such a special snowflake that there's always a reason that things that work nearly everywhere else couldn't possibly work here.

Your individual opinion of Australia, name calling, appeal to group behavior, and vague "things that work everywhere" doesn't negate the fact that not voting is a form of protest (or often just a simple preference) that a healthy democracy shouldn't have an issue with.

After all, if nine months of partisan rioting in an election season is kosher before a "free and fair election", which leads to over twenty five deaths, then not voting shouldn't be a big deal.

Unless, of course, a compulsory level turnout has value in lending legitimacy given the the broader context of antidemocratic events.

Democratic governments should not have the political protection of citing the compulsory turnout. Whether the political currency lent by the compulsory turnout is implied or overtly cited.

The political currency that the turnout lends is something that needs to be earned via the legitimate practice of government.

If the government processes become corrupt, then the voter turnout should be one avenue of reflecting that opinion by the populace.

The choice to withhold a vote is as democratically "sacred" as the right to vote.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#154

Post by [deleted] »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #114
sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that Republican-controlled states have arranged to systematically make it harder for urban people to get ID cards Source? The fact is you need ID for SNAP and Medicaid benefits. So who are all these people with no ID, no money, no food, no identity, no anything but somehow all eligible voters?

Why do you assume the people targeted must have no money, or use SNAP or Medicaid?

[deleted]

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#155

Post by platevoltage »

dimal wrote: post #142
mandeepj wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society But that moron in WH is still spreading lies about that election; he has no shame, no remorse, no nothing. On the contrary, he was successful in portraying himself a victim and win people’s sympathy. Even though he’s the one who called insurrection. There’s no accountability for him. Look at South Korea, who i…

I had been worried about what would happen as the American republic goes down, whether other countries would follow suit. So those two examples are cause for hope. As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win. And they did absolutely everything wrong. I almost blame them as much as Trump for this mess.

You're not wrong. Biden, who is basically an unwrapped mummy at this point would have won easily if he handled Israel/Gaza with any sort of grace.

All Harris had to do was challenge Biden's position on the issue, and not parade Liz Cheney out on stage like the "disillusioned Republican vote" was a real thing.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#156

Post by platevoltage »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #85
siliconc0w wrote: post #5

It's pretty sad that is these sort of ticky-tacky lawsuits are really the only mechanism we seem have of holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society (like saying a election was stolen). And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation.

Wouldn't that damage the right to free speech? Regulating what the media is and isn't allowed to say is a very slippery slope and it is open to abuse. If the government was responsible for this task what would prevent Trump and the republicans from hijacking it? It might be frustrating but free speech is one of the cornerstones of democracy and we are much better off with it then without it. > And that wasn't even th…

We've watched media companies settle cases that they would have won on the merits in order to avoid the wrath of a vengeful authoritarian. We've already slipped down that slope.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#157

Post by otterley »

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #69
otterley wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been trusting our voters' word for centuries and it hasn't been a problem yet. Why all the distrust all of a sudden? What changed?

You can't enter Costco anymore without scanning your ID card and them checking your face because people were cheating. I asked one of the cashiers when they first rolled out more stringent ID checks and she said they were catching 5-10 people a day where the photo didn't match. Likewise you can't enter a bar, buy booze or cigarettes, rent a car or hotel room without ID because no one can be trusted. > it hasn't been…

First, your response doesn't answer the question I asked.

Second, these two things are not the same. People routinely try to defraud businesses because they get tangible value out of it. They don't routinely try to defraud elections: Not only is the punishment more severe for the latter; the would-be fraudster gets practically nothing of value for his efforts.

And to say it's not a problem is not naive. Investigations are routinely carried out in response to allegations of voter fraud, and practically none result in any serious accusations let alone convictions, and certainly none at the scale that could affect an elections outcome.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#158

Post by mapt »

cj wrote: post #124
mapt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To willingly lie about something you need to be able to differentiate truth from fiction. Defamation hinges on either this willing lie ("malice") or on negligence (and the expected due diligence for a self-professed news organization is high). There is a little performative middle ground here, but WHATEVER is argued in court does not moot the things argued at every commercial break about trusting their news instituti…

> Fox news is not, and never has been, intended as satire Their homepage right now is featuring a pull up and push up contest between Hegseth and RFK jr. It hardly appears as though they’re trying to be a legitimate news network. (Same goes for CNN - both are incredibly and undeniably outrageous in their reporting) But I agree, their audiences take their reporting seriously, even if they themselves are just saying wh…

A light comedy piece or a plucky human interest story do not erase the statements of fact made or the repeated insistence on being taken seriously which pervade the rest of this institution. It isn't even reliant on their audience taking them seriously, it's reliant on the intended tone and how a reasonable person would perceive that intent.

You can argue that Fox News is intended to be basically the Colbert Report satirizing a certain mindset, but it's an obviously bad-faith argument. The Colbert Report was literally created to satirize the seriousness and mendacity of Fox News and its attempts to persuade people into a set of not just interpretations of the world, but factual beliefs about that world.

There is a line, and Fox runs way over the line into defamatory content multiple times an hour.

I can't immunize myself from currency counterfeiting charges by claiming that I never thought the copies were real, that it was all just in fun, that I was pranking the businesses I spent them at, and that my Youtube channel includes other fun bits of me deceiving people and telling jokes. The one does not exculpate the other.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#159

Post by the_gastropod »

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #93
jeffbee wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are welcomed to fix this. There is not a single Democrat anywhere in America who will be mad if you fix this. Everyone will congratulate you. The problem is that Republican-controlled states have arranged to systematically make it harder for urban people to get ID cards, and have systematically structured the system such that even born citizens cannot get one due to having never had a birth certificate (because t…

> The problem is that Republican-controlled states have arranged to systematically make it harder for urban people to get ID cards Source? The fact is you need ID for SNAP and Medicaid benefits. So who are all these people with no ID, no money, no food, no identity, no anything but somehow all eligible voters?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Uni...

There are dozens of examples of Republican states attempting to disenfranchise minority voters.

Not sure why you’re bringing up money, food, or identity here. But as a simple example: picture an average middle class New Yorker. They do not drive. They don’t travel internationally. Why would they need to go get an ID? (I lived in NY for about 11 years, and went a long chunk of that without bothering to get an ID. Only did eventually so that I could rent a car)

I wish you’d recognize that the “problem” you’re suggesting needs solving was invented by political actors with the sole intent of increasing their odds of winning elections. There’s no other real problem they’re trying to solve.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#160

Post by pstuart »

jibal wrote: post #84
pstuart wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remain convinced that Rather was set up by Karl Rove -- it fits in with his other dirty tricks.

The story wasn't sketchy. Rather's claims about GWB's service were correct and well documented ... it was only the Killian memo that was apparently inauthentic ... but it may well have been transcribed using later technology.

That was the beauty of it -- it changed the story from the known facts about Bush into Rather using forged documents. It was a very clever trick, I'll give him that.
Post reply on HN