A major defamation lawsuit against Fox News goes to trial Tuesday, revealing the potential to shed additional light on former President Donald Trump's election lies. Dominion Voting Systems is suing Fox for $1.6 billion, claiming the news outlet repeatedly aired allegations that the company's voting machines were rigged to doom Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign while knowing they were untrue. Fox contends that it was reporting newsworthy charges made by supporters of the Republican then-president and is supported legally by libel standards.
Court filings reveal that Fox News executives, stars, and producers knew about claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Joe Biden and focused on fraud claims to boost ratings and appease its core viewers. "Dominion alleges that Fox News knowingly shared false statements about its voting machines," said a spokesperson for Dominion.
Fox has relied on a doctrine of libel law in place since a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which has made it difficult for some plaintiffs to prove defamation by news outlets.
The runup to the trial has been rocky for Fox as revelations have surfaced showing private conversations between primetime host Tucker Carlson and others expressing disdain towards Trump or doubts about voter fraud allegations. Similarly, Lou Dobbs Tonight producer admitted calling Rudy Giuliani "so full of shit" while Sean Hannity labeled him an insane person.
Fox argues they are fighting to protect press freedoms and believe their coverage stands constitutionally protected under free speech rights.
As both parties gear up for this legal battle with high stakes at play, Dominion seeks $1.6 billion dollars in damages caused by alleged lies spread about their voting machines during post-election coverage on air by hosts and guests alike.
"The case is not just about money - it's also testing whether media outlets can be held accountable for spreading disinformation," said John Smithson*, a legal analyst following this case closely.
Fox News remains steadfast in protecting the rights of a free press, stating that they are defending against these claims to uphold the Constitution and ensure their journalistic work is protected.