The courtroom has reconvened following the lunch intermission, with opening statements anticipated to commence shortly in the landmark defamation suit initiated by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.
Here’s a summary of the critical details regarding this consequential case:
What prompted Dominion to sue Fox News? In 2021, Dominion filed a lawsuit against Fox News for the conservative network’s continuous propagation of false allegations regarding the company, asserting that its voting machines altered the outcome of the 2020 election by shifting millions of votes away from Donald Trump and towards Joe Biden. The lawsuit cites around 20 allegedly defamatory segments, mostly aired during November and December 2020.
The company contends that individuals at Fox acted with actual malice and “recklessly disregarded the truth” while disseminating this misinformation about Dominion. To establish “actual malice,” Dominion must persuade a jury that those responsible for these 20 segments at Fox knew the claims against Dominion were false or ignored evidence that contradicted those claims — yet broadcasted them regardless.
According to Dominion’s perspective, Fox propagated these election-related conspiracy theories because “the falsehoods benefited Fox’s business operations.” The lawsuit specifically targets programs hosted by Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Jeanine Pirro. Dominion claims that due to Fox’s “coordinated defamatory initiative,” it has experienced “significant and irreversible financial damage” and that its employees have faced threats and harassment.
What defense is Fox putting forward? Fox asserts that it has not defamed anyone and claims the lawsuit constitutes a meritless attack on journalistic freedoms.
A spokesperson for Fox stated the network is “proud of our 2020 election reporting” and asserts that this coverage “upholds the finest traditions of American journalism.” The company maintains that “Dominion’s lawsuit is a politically motivated endeavor seeking financial gain, yet the genuine cost would undermine cherished First Amendment rights.”
Fox has also accused Dominion of creating “distraction and confusion” surrounding the trial, asserting that “the essence of this case is centered on the freedom of the press and the right to speak freely, which are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution,” particularly under the First Amendment.
Fox has attempted to have the case dismissed, but a significant setback occurred last month when the presiding judge permitted the trial to proceed. Furthermore, he has barred Fox from invoking certain key First Amendment defenses, deeming them without merit.
What damages is Dominion seeking? Dominion is pursuing $1.6 billion in damages, claiming that Fox’s false on-air assertions have tarnished its reputation and led election officials to revoke their contracts with Dominion. UJ recently highlighted the increasing skepticism surrounding voting machines in predominantly Republican areas.
What are the trial procedures? The trial is projected to last five to six weeks and will be presided over by Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis, who was appointed to the state court in 2012 by a Democratic governor. A jury of 12 members along with 12 alternates is being assembled.
No cameras will be permitted inside the courtroom, nor will there be any video recordings of the proceedings. Additionally, still photography is prohibited within the courtroom.
Who is anticipated to testify? Expected witnesses include Fox Corporation executives Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch; Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and President Jay Wallace; as well as notable TV personalities Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro, and Bret Baier, among others.
Dominion has indicated it might also call Viet Dinh, the chief legal officer at Fox, and former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who serves on the Fox board, as witnesses.
Both parties are also aiming to present testimony from their selected experts in various fields, including election statistics, voting machine security, journalistic ethics, and the effects of misinformation in public discourse, among other topics.
For additional information about the case, click here.
