Dominion vs Fox Reading Materials

How Can We Help?

Contents
Sections
You are here:
< All Topics

Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News

Background

Issues for Discussion (selected)

  • Legal
    • Defamation
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Actual Malice
    • Election Interference
  • Journalism
    • Responsibility of News Organizations
    • Accuracy and Credibility
    • Ethics of Opinion Journalism
    • Press Freedom
  • Political
    • False Claims of Election Fraud
    • Political Bias
    • Freedom of the Press
    • Polarization and Political Discourse
  • Damages
    • Defamation
    • Lost Business Opportunities
    • Emotional Distress
    • Punitive Damages

Cases

  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): This landmark case established the principle that public figures must prove actual malice in order to succeed in a defamation lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that a public official could not recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he could prove that the statement was made with “actual malice” – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.
  • Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990): This case clarified that opinions that imply false assertions of fact can be the basis of a defamation claim. The Supreme Court held that “statements of opinion may imply false assertions of fact and thus be actionable, whereas statements of fact may imply opinions yet not be actionable.” This case also established the principle that statements made in the context of a public controversy may be protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that “speech on matters of public concern occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.”
  • Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967): This case established the principle that a public figure who is not a public official may recover damages for a defamatory falsehood whose substance causes substantial danger to reputation by showing the defendant publisher acted with highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

News Reports (selected)

Posted in .