But Fox News argued that Carlson "cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect," the ruling said.
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[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes.""This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" the ruling said
This was the same defense used in the rachel maddow lawsuit. Why not use a defense that is known to work?
No they are not. You just want things to be simple. Left vs right, black vs white. Nuance is necessary and you appear to lack it.
"For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context," Bashant added.
https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/comments/j04eqv/fox_new...
No they are not. You just want things to be simple. Left vs right, black vs white. Nuance is necessary and you appear to lack it.
"For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context," Bashant added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/499294-judge-dismisses-on...