Page 20 - Libel Case News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

The plaintiff's lawyer, you don't expect to get anything remotely like this. this is sort of like a -- these cases are like a kaleidoscope. what you have is sometimes you turn it one way and the reporters look a little careless and they look like they're ignoring something. the other way, you can see how they might have believed this story to be true. and what's really remarkable is that this comes in the context of the most different. standard, the most standard that you could possibly apply in a libel case, which is "the new york times" against sullivan standard, which governs the libel clai...

Thompson that says what you have to show to show reckless disregard is at a minimum, the publisher of the information or the broadcaster of the information actually entertained serious doubts as to the truth of what was being reported. and here it's you have that in droves, at multiple levels. i don't have you the fact checker, you have the anchors, you have rupert murdoch, all agreeing that this was false. and you never see in a libel case, you just virtually never see in a libel case the libel plaintiff moving for summary judgment, which is a judgment without a trial, saying there is really ...

Libel case, which is the new york times against -- which governs the libel claims on manners of public concern against public figures, and so that requires -- it's a bit of a misnomer, because people talk about it being a standard of actual malice, rico uses that word. but malice is not required. and then you also hear the term reckless disregard. mint recklessness is not enough, it's not enough that the reporter blew past the facts. what you have to show is, and there's a case from 1968 called and it versus thompson, which says the what you have to show to show reckless disregard is that at a...

Again or sixth. >> from a legal perspective, how much trouble do you think that fox news is in with this dominion lawsuit? >> i can't. it's incredible. i litigated libel cases, one in particular in my practice 25 years ago, and litigated in lots of other cases. when you have a libel case, and do the plaintiff, or the plaintiffs lawyer, you don't expect to get anything remotely like this. these cases are like a kaleidoscope, and what you have is sometimes you turn it one way, and reporters look a little bit careless and look like they're ignoring something on the other end, and you can see how ...

This because they so threaten the ability of the broadcast company afterwards to say, well, look, we're just interviewing something. we believe it -- we don't know what's true. we're just looking for the facts. if they're saying to each other at the same time, you know that person is a nut. >> right. it makes it very hard, maybe not impossible. who knows. but it makes it an unusual case, too, because evidence of that really rarely comes up in a libel case. >> it's extraordinary to see behind the curtain in this instance, and here's another example from november 18th, 2020, tucker carlson, laur...