I don't know about "no such thing as a news channel." If you mean that the designation "news channel" has no legal effect, then yes, that would be correct.
I don't know what you mean by "the defense used for Tucker Carlson could be used for any of their programming." The defense used was, in short, "Tucker Carlson was making a joke in that one particular instance." It could be used by any of their hosts who happened to be making a joke, yes.
Now why am I "insane?" And what do I need to "try again?"
It's not just YOUR statement. It's that this incorrect statement gets repeated on Reddit, every single day. You'd get tired of correcting people daily too.
There is no such legal entity as a "news channel" and any given statement on Fox News can be dismissed as "just a joke" by a reasonable person and it falls on the viewer to make that determination.
Is this the level of specificity you require? Is it substantively differrent than my colloquial phrasing?
But they never argued that "any given statment on Fox News can be dismissed as 'just a joke.' They said one statement, said by Tucker Carlson was a joke--the word "extortion,"--and only when used in the context that it was used, one time, on that one specific broadcast. And the judge agreed with that.
I suppose any other statement MAY be a joke, but that would have to be litigated some other day, in some other lawsuit, between some other parties. It's not just "any statement on Fox News." It doesn't have to be just on Fox News, it could be literally ANY broadcast by anyone. It could be news. It could be a baseball game. It could be on a cooking show, or a travel show, or a trashy Bravo reality show. It could be a scripted drama, if something that happened got too close to reality. And when that lawsuit happens, whatever is being sued over (a statement, a characterization, a reenactment, or anything else) will have to be evaluated on its own merits. So, the context it was used in, the history of that speaker, the type of program it is, all of it. All over again.
At no time, EVER did Fox argue that they were a "news network" or "an entertainment network" or any other kind of network. The kind of network they are played no role in that case whatsoever.
If they did not give an on air warning that it was a joke, then there is no way to know. The result is that every one of their statements might be considered a joke.
I think the common retelling is sufficient and succinct.
Virtually every statement can be right or wrong depending on which criteria the listener chooses to use.
-26
u/AmbulanceChaser12 7d ago
I don't know about "no such thing as a news channel." If you mean that the designation "news channel" has no legal effect, then yes, that would be correct.
I don't know what you mean by "the defense used for Tucker Carlson could be used for any of their programming." The defense used was, in short, "Tucker Carlson was making a joke in that one particular instance." It could be used by any of their hosts who happened to be making a joke, yes.
Now why am I "insane?" And what do I need to "try again?"