Smartmatic's defamation lawsuit against Newsmax over the 2020 election is headed to trial

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

Sept. 12, 2024, 10:05 PM EDT


A Delaware judge agreed to send another 2020 election defamation case to trial Thursday, ruling that the Newsmax Media published false claims saying Smartmatic voting machines rigged the 2020 election. A jury will soon decide whether the network defamed the voting machine company — that is, whether it published those claims with actual malice or reckless disregard for truth and damaged the company — and whether damages are due.

“The jury must determine if Newsmax was doing what media organizations typically do — inform the public of newsworthy events — or did Newsmax purposely avoid the truth and defame Smartmatic,” Judge Eric Davis wrote in a 57-page ruling. The trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 30, The Associated Press reported.

Florida-based voting machine company Smartmatic, alleging defamation, sued Newsmax Media, also based in Florida, in 2021, arguing that the network claimed its devices rigged the 2020 election. Newsmax has argued that it was reporting on newsworthy events, and that some of the claims at issue were true.

Former President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was rigged. Trump’s lawyers have singled out Smartmatic as one of the culprits.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/smartmatic-defamation-lawsuit-newsmax-2020-election-trial-rcna170939

[Oopsie Daisy]

1. Bankrupt them! Put them out of business!

[KS Toronado]

2. When Kamala & Tim are in the White House next year

Hope they can find a way to curb the disinformation propaganda RW media relies on to brainwash
people into believing falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. "Hope they can find a way to curb the disinformation propaganda"

They (Biden/Harris) have been trying to do that since they were first elected and have been slapped around by the courts for "First Amendment".

The SCOTUS only threw out the latest case against the Administration for the attempts because they claimed the plaintiffs didn't have standing - https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/

Justices side with Biden over government’s influence on social media content moderation

By Amy Howe
on Jun 26, 2024 at 4:52 pm


The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of 6-3, the court ruled that that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right, known as standing, to bring their lawsuit.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Suggesting that the case could be “one of the most important free speech cases to reach” the Supreme Court “in years,” Alito would have ruled both that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their lawsuit and that “the White House coerced Facebook into censoring” at least one plaintiff’s speech.

The lawsuit centers on “jawboning,” a term used to describe informal efforts by government officials to persuade someone outside the government to take action. In this case, the plaintiffs – two states with Republican attorneys general and several individuals whose social media posts were removed or downgraded – challenged the Biden administration’s efforts in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. They argued that the administration’s actions had violated social media users’ rights to free speech.

(snip)

[KS Toronado]

4. Bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" or something similar would be a good start.

[et tu]

5. and fact checkers on all news programs

independent ones of course, propaganda needs to be dealt with
in a more timely manner~

[BumRushDaShow]

8. That was an artifact of an "old tech" world

when there were only 3 - 4 major OTA broadcast networks, a bunch of news/talk radio stations nationwide (where a need would have arisen), and a handful of cable channels (plus print media).

With advent of satellite broadcast services (TV/radio), the internet, and "social media", all bets are off, with an unimaginable number of websites and digital media outlets too numerous to deal with, and would run afoul of the First Amendment and the "Congress shall make no law abridging... " thing.

[Comfortably_Numb]

6. I suspect Newsmax does not have $787.5 million laying around, and lacks Rupert's deep pockets. I see a bankruptcy......

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

7. I can't see how they won't shut that shitpipe down.

The judgement should be fatal.

[Martin68]

9. One more reason Harris has to win. Without a functioning justice system, the MAGAts will win.

[Festivito]

10. Couldn't happen to a nicer Maxipad.

I hope the result for them is a bloody mess.

News? They're not news!