A Win For Dominion is Also a Win For Democracy.

Background:

Dominion Voting Systems is a company that provides voting machines, software, and services to election jurisdictions across the United States and around the world. They were targeted by various conservative media outlets, including Fox News, who claimed that the company facilitated the processes that led to a ‘fraudulent election.’ These baseless claims cost Dominion regarding credibility and revenue, which has caused them to sue Fox for violation based on defamation. As of my writing of this post, the case has recently settled for $787 million, one of the highest ever amongst defamation lawsuits.

Opinions:

Ah yes, the 1st amendment -- One of, if not the most contentious points of debate in the history of American politics. The most primitive rendition of said debates dates back to John Adams's presidency when he passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which ignited an eternal flame beneath the seats of Democratic-Republicans of the time and limited-government supporters for MANY years to come. In 2023, the core of this controversy remains untouched and the question remains -- How broad should the scope of 1st amendment protections extend? When asking your average citizen what they think of when naming the founding principles of American culture, ‘freedom of speech’ is likely to be mentioned the majority of the time. However, with the advent of modern technologies in combination with dominant media houses, such as Fox News, free speech (in some cases) has been transformed from a tool used for freedom of expression into a political weapon, with unlimited capacity to incite chaos. This argument doesn’t apply to all free speech debates, however, when framing the Dominion vs Fox case in the context of its implications (the January 6 capitol insurrection), it’s clear that for both the physical safety of American citizens and faith in democracy, freedom of speech must have its limitations. And it’s for exactly that reason that defamation is a form of unprotected and unlawful speech. Not only did Fox’s deliberate dissemination of misinformation surrounding the election results tarnish Dominion Voting Systems’ credibility, but it was also a direct attack on the democratic process, which in my opinion, is the far more egregious consequence of the situation. The attack on the capitol not only resulted in physical damages, but yet again, it damaged the credibility of our nation's system, the democratic system, that has held our nation together since its foundation. I think that the same people who would argue that the first amendment is the cornerstone of American values would also argue that democracy takes precedence over it. Without democracy, we have no America. We’ve fought countless wars in the name of protecting democracy, suffering unfathomable casualties, and yet Fox News, under the guidance of former President Trump’s rhetoric, is working internally to dismantle the reputation of that invaluable institution. Okay, apologies, I went off on a bit of a tangent. But hey, this is my personal blog, so I think that’s okay. Anyways, I know it's impossible to bring legal action against Fox News for the charge of damaging faith in the American system, however, I do believe that this is the more significant implication of the whole trial. However, that claim more directly reflects the events of January 6 itself than the Fox vs Dominion trial. The $787 million settlement is a clear victory for Dominion and its legal team, but the question remains: Is it a win for society? I think the answer to that question is a blatant no. Sure, Dominion got its payout, the largest in defamation history, yet to my previous point, no amount of money undoes the damages caused to democracy by Fox’s malicious perpetration of lies. According to the 1964 supreme court case New York Times vs. Sullivan, the “plaintiff suing for defamation must be able to prove that the publisher had actual malice.” Dominion’s legal team made true of this ruling with relative ease in large due to the leaked messages of Fox’s Sidney Powell admitting to colleagues that the information being published was completely fabricated, even going as far as to mock Fox’s viewers for “eating it up.” I have limited information on all of the pieces of evidence in the trial but I do know based on this alone, that surely Fox’s lies were spread knowingly and with malicious intent. Their defense team will try and prove that they were just reporting on “newsworthy news.” After all, it was the president himself (this is another aspect of the issue) who incited and endorsed the election fraud claims. And it is this point about the president’s endorsement of these lies that furthers the notion of news agencies being used as political weapons. Fox News is a large reputable agency (although maybe less now), yet it was their credibility in combination with Trump’s rhetoric that provided the immense firepower behind the lies and caused the ensuing events at the capitol. It is due to this potency, that results from combining news agencies' and prominent figures' credibility, that there is a pressing need for further filtration of media. However, that brings us back to the first amendment -- filtration of media? No way! Maybe if agencies like Fox recognized their influence and acted responsibly given the power they possess by simply fact-checking themselves, and holding themselves accountable, there would be no need for such measures. I don’t think that is possible. Another ingredient to add to the pot of the danger of misinformation is, as previously mentioned, the advent of modern technologies. With platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. misinformation can spread at unprecedented rates, which compounds its potency even further. Because these technologies are contemporary innovations, there has not been a period in history where the fake news dilemma has ever been so dire, and therefore, the need for regulatory actions on influential media agencies and potentially individuals (like the long-awaited ban on Trump’s Twitter account in January of 2021) will only continue to expand. Man, I did it again. Okay, so the implications of the settlement itself: As previously stated, I don’t think the settlement can be counted as a complete win for protection against defamation and perpetuating politically-motivated lies in general, but I do think it sets a precedent for future crackdowns on corrupt media agencies. Who knows, maybe the courts will continue in this direction and produce future outcomes in favor of protecting both victims of 1st amendment violators and democracy itself. As for now, I do think the outcome of the Fox vs Dominion case is a step in the right direction, but the destination is still cast far off on the horizon.