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

91–100 of 308 posts

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

#91

Post by platevoltage »

whatsupdog wrote: post #4

Unpopular opinion: Paper ballots with in person voting (with an ID) is the only 100% fool proof and verifiable voting system. Everything else could be manipulated or hacked. And when there's trillions of dollars and world power on the line, it's just a matter of time when the "could be" turns to "would be".

Should ID's be free and easy to get, because if not, this would amount to a poll tax, which has been deemed unconstitutional.

We are also not required to have or carry ID to carry out any of our constitutionally protected rights.

We would need to set up a service where a representative from the government would come to your house on demand, verify your identity, and issue you a free ID whether you live in downtown DC, rural New Mexico, or somewhere in Puerto Rico. Otherwise this is a non-starter.

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

#92

Post by throw0101a »

tyre wrote: post #20
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.

Related: “I find all of this so weird because of how it _elevates_ finance. [Various cases] imply that we are not entitled to be protected from pollution as _citizens_, or as _humans_. [Another] implies that we are not entitled to be told the truth _as citizens_. (Which: is true!) Rather, in each case, we are only entitled to be protected from lies _as shareholders_. The great harm of pollution, or of political disho…

> Matt Levine

I was curios for the exact source, and the link is:

* https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-31/senato...

* https://archive.is/9WcxD

He referenced / quoted it recently:

* https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-04-01/is-...

* https://archive.is/B7yvw

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

#93

Post by sugarpimpdorsey »

jeffbee wrote: post #77
jeltz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Voter registration requires proof of eligibility, poll books, signatures, and address checks are used for verification. And how is that less of a barrier than requiring an ID? Just fix so that it is easy to get an ID like most other countries have.

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?

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

#94

Post by platevoltage »

otterley wrote: post #34
sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its believed that more democratic voters are less likely to have an id This notion that Democrats keep pushing - that a sizable portion of their voting base is too dumb to get an ID - when massive developing countries like India that are still struggling with basic things like sanitation have long ago solved this problem - is nothing short of embarrassing. There are people in rural India that live in straw huts tha…

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?

One of the most prolific liars in history didn't have an election go his way. That's what changed.

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

#95

Post by cj »

lesuorac wrote: post #43
ilovecurl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During Dominion's case against Fox News around this same issue Fox News' own lawyers stated that they were not stating actual facts about the topics under discussion and instead were engaged in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. It's not news, it's infotainment.

Lawyers would tell you that water isn't wet it's just slick if it'd help them win their case. I don't see any fix for the news cycle besides slowing it down. Even if enough happens to fill 24h in a day there isn't enough time to actually analyze it at all.

> Lawyers would tell you that water isn't wet

Sure, but do you really think the Fox News anchors honestly believed what they were saying?

I’d venture a guess: no. They said what they said because that’s what they had to do to get their paycheck at the end of the day.

Yes, lawyers will say whatever to win a case. But I highly doubt those news anchors really thought the election was stolen. It’s all for ratings. Let’s be honest.

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

#96

Post by mrangle »

kg wrote: post #15
FridayoLeary wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterargument is that mail in ballots help increase voter turnouts and that requiring id will turn people away. It's a weak argument because you shouldn't try to increase turnout by making voting less secure. Any other solution should be found instead.

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…

ID isn't a poll tax because it isn't a poll tax. Voter ID requirements are no more discriminatory than they are for air travel.

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

#97

Post by mapt »

ilovecurl wrote: post #21
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.

During Dominion's case against Fox News around this same issue Fox News' own lawyers stated that they were not stating actual facts about the topics under discussion and instead were engaged in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. It's not news, it's infotainment.

This is a general defense to try and moot the existence of defamation law, and a judge who isn't on the right-wing payroll is likely to take offense.

Fox settled with Dominion for $800M.

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

#98

Post by nickff »

LurkerAtTheGate wrote: post #67
tyre wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: “I find all of this so weird because of how it _elevates_ finance. [Various cases] imply that we are not entitled to be protected from pollution as _citizens_, or as _humans_. [Another] implies that we are not entitled to be told the truth _as citizens_. (Which: is true!) Rather, in each case, we are only entitled to be protected from lies _as shareholders_. The great harm of pollution, or of political disho…

I was thinking this opens them up to a shareholder suit for mismanagement, breach of duty, or possibly even fraud?

Matt Levine often repeats the phrase ‘everything is securities fraud’. Any statement which turns out (with hindsight) to be false is grounds for a shareholder class-action lawsuit. Even many correct statements are grounds for shareholder class actions. The problem is that the only people who actually profit from shareholder class actions are the lawyers.

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

#99

Post by platevoltage »

preinheimer wrote: post #88
whatsupdog wrote: post #4

Unpopular opinion: Paper ballots with in person voting (with an ID) is the only 100% fool proof and verifiable voting system. Everything else could be manipulated or hacked. And when there's trillions of dollars and world power on the line, it's just a matter of time when the "could be" turns to "would be".

I don't think that in person voting with ID is a fool proof way to guarantee that only the people who "should be voting" get to vote. I also think you disenfranchise too many people when you do that. - People who work on oil rigs won't get to vote - People who do shift work covering the hours the polls are open wont get to vote - People who are of sound mind, but too unwell to travel to a polling location wont get to…

--- College students are always a wildcard, do they cast a ballot where they are (ID could be from a different state) or go home for the weekend?

I personally couldn't care less as long as they only vote once.

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

#100

Post by CharlesW »

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #79
CharlesW wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual argument by anyone who cares about voting rights concerns structural barriers to obtaining ID (hint: doesn't include stupidity). India's Aadhaar ID system, which still struggles with duplicate and missing voter records, doesn't magically solve any of the problems you mention. > Not "let's have just anyone vote and we'll trust their word". That's not how it works here. Voter registration requires proof of e…

> Thanks in part to multiple levels of safeguards, impersonation fraud has been effectively non-existent. Unsuccessful fraud is effectively non-existent. There is no public data about successful fraud. So why not make the system bulletproof? Why do we constantly improve encryption algorithms? Why do modern web browsers not work with cipher suites on 5 year old hardware making them effectively useless e-waste? Accordi…

> There is no public data about successful fraud.

The notoriously liberal (/s) Heritage Foundation maintains a public database of all known election fraud cases in the U.S., finding less than two-dozen cases since 1979. Many independent studies come to the same conclusion. Physical voting fraud is statistically negligible, if not perfectly non-existent.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be cautious about fraud, but impersonation fraud will not be how it happens unless we centralize and digitize voting. With that will come the inevitable centralization and digitization of new systemic risks at scale.

Post reply on HN