Court Declares Tucker Carlson is Full of Shit

Just a reminder the corruption runs deep:

US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."


upload_2021-4-3_10-2-56.png

upload_2021-4-3_10-1-35.png
 
Here4money said:
That's some bullshit defense given the viewership from the numbskulls. We all know he's full of shit, but certainly enough people believe him, including some on this very board.
More...
El OchoCinco said:
A Manhattan judge has tossed out a defamation lawsuit against Fox News brought by the former Playboy model who took a $150,000 payoff to squelch her story of an affair with a pre-presidency Donald Trump.


The judge said that lawyers for Fox "persuasively" argued that "any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements" Carlson makes

Given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."
More...
Tucker simply used the Rachel Maddow defense.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/23/judge-tosses-defamation-suit-filed-against-msnbcs-/

“The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts,” the judge decided.

“In sum, when the total context surrounding Maddow’s comment is considered, the Court finds that the context weighs towards a finding that the statement constitutes opinion and rhetorical hyperbole protected under the First Amendment,” ruled the judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
 
Last edited:
WeToddDid2 said:
Tucker simply used the Rachel Maddow defense.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/23/judge-tosses-defamation-suit-filed-against-msnbcs-/

“The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts,” the judge decided.

“In sum, when the total context surrounding Maddow’s comment is considered, the Court finds that the context weighs towards a finding that the statement constitutes opinion and rhetorical hyperbole protected under the First Amendment,” ruled the judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
More...


If you are such a big fan of mine you would know I seriosuly dislike Maddow as much as Carlson...

Also Maddow and Carlson are news commentary shows, so the judges are correct in both cases though they come close to libel/slander at times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top