Jump to content
laylalex

Judge tosses suit over Trump affair story after Fox News argues no "reasonable viewer" takes Tucker Carlson seriously

7 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Posted

:lol:

 

Quote

 

U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled on Thursday that McDougal failed to prove that Carlson was accusing her of an actual crime in a way that would back up a defamation claim. 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, according to a court filing.

The judge called the on-air remarks "rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and as such, are not actionable as defamation," the judge said in a written ruling.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-tosses-suit-trump-affair-story-fox-news-tucker-carlson/

Posted (edited)

The comedy is people juxtaposing the legal argument as political commentary itself. :rofl:

 

It was masterful and easy, which puts it in legal perspective, those snowflakes trying to "de-platform" Tucker as if his opinions are harmful, going after his advertisers and trying to ruin him. He's a pundit who does an opinion/commentary show on the news (which is what FOX is saying), not a reporter doing investigative journalism. That distinction has great weight on the expectations of what they say re:defamation. If I was a company facing a judge in court I'd say the same thing too, not only for its legal strength (which is what won), but because it might appeal to their irrational idea that its slamming Tucker. Allow for the hollow moral victories while winning the real ones of substance. 👍

Edited by Burnt Reynolds
Posted
Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

Paste from third party source?

 

I generally know better when I post anything from Breitbart.. always "paste as plain text" option (in the text box just after pasting), the third party code is like forum cancer.

I did the paste from plain text thing since it always brings in junk formatting whatever the source, and I prefer it clean (easier to read). 

 

Or it's Friday evening and I was thinking about what to do about dinner. Always possible! 

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline
Posted
46 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Wow, what is up with the strikethrough text in my post? Weird.

you got NBitis.

* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

you got NBitis.

LL must now quintantine for 41 days.

Edited by TBoneTX

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...