>> Who do you you think might have standing to do that? What entity might have a demonstrable claim of damages? And at a sufficient level to justify investment in a lawsuit, to boot?
Oh, I think Trump would have claims against essentially all of the major media. Their lies were not news reporting, they were malicious efforts to override the vote of the people. The key word here being malicious.
He did sue some of the worst offenders, but no malice was alleged which killed his chances; clearly, he was simply trying to shut down the behavior. To no avail, of course.
But there has been a lot of actual malice involved in reporting on Trump and, IMO, he should come out swinging if he runs in 2024, as appears likely.
To the extent the suits against Fox and various conservative commentators gain traction, it will reinforce the use of legal action against news reporting which is false, but perhaps not shown to be malicious. I saw the Lou Dobbs piece and I'm not sure there was malice: I believe he believed the material was factual, and hence, not malicious.
I've long maintained there is nothing to be done about "free speech abuse" as you can't live with it, can't live without it.
In the last five years I've seen the media bring us the place where we now are -- which is will in the end destroy the country as we knew it. I'd rather have some restrictions on media than what we are seeing now. I'm not talking about heavy handed restrictions, but as long as we are violating fundamental constitutional protections it is time to talk about ending some of the media's protections which they have so horribly abused. |
