A case set for trial in April 2023 may reset the contours on freedom of the press, requiring news anchors and networks to either tell the truth or pay the consequences. Seeking compensatory damages of $1.6 billion plus unquantified punitive damages, Dominion Voting System vs. Fox News LLC asserts that Fox anchors repeatedly aired statements about the 2020 presidential election after they knew them to be false.

Political speech, including the freedom to criticize politicians, is the heart of the First Amendment. Applicable to government attempts to constrain free speech, it does not apply to privately owned media such as CNN or Fox. Since the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, which required licensed news broadcasts to cover issues in a “fair and balanced manner,” social media and infotainment channels masquerading as news have proliferated. Privately owned networks and social media platforms can now profit greatly from misinformation, with dangerous extremism and political violence rising as a result.

The Dominion case rests specifically on whether and at what point Fox knew its anchors’ claims were false. Exposing a falsehood is not enough to support a defamation claim. A showing of political hatred or ill will, known as common law malice, is not sufficient either. Instead, defamation requires showing that the publisher knew the statements were false, but made them anyway. This is an extremely high evidentiary bar: proving that a news anchor knew they were lying while...

Read Full Story: https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-haake-col-...