As voting begins for the 2024 US presidential election, voting technology company Smartmatic and conservative news outlet Newsmax have reached an agreement on the final outcome of the election.
Earlier this year, Smartmatic settled another defamation lawsuit with another far-right network, One America News Network (OANN), in a confidential settlement. Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, two Atlanta election workers who faced vicious harassment after various networks spread false claims about them, settled with OANN in 2022. Former Dominion employee Eric Coomer settled with Newsmax in 2021. Another voting equipment company, Dominion, also settled with Fox for $787.5 million on the eve of the trial.
Some settlements involve on-air apologies or retractions. Other companies, including one between Fox and Dominion, have not. In some cases, the terms of the agreements are not disclosed at all, leaving the public in the dark about what price, if any, news outlets are paying to spread election lies. There is.
Smartmatic and Dominion, as well as Freeman and Moss, both still have numerous defamation lawsuits pending against far-right media and other allies of Donald Trump. However, so far only one defamation lawsuit has reached the trial stage, and the rest have ended in settlements. These agreements can lack disclosure and accountability and highlight how limited defamation law is in the sense of justice it can bring to the public in response to election misinformation. are.
Defamation law is an area of the legal system designed around specificity, structured so that certain people can receive monetary compensation for specific damage done to their reputation. .
“Defamation law only applies to false information that harms someone’s reputation, so it’s definitely more complicated than people think,” said University of Florida law professor Lilissa Lidsky. “Most of the misinformation is specifically related to elections and, unlike these allegations, is not targeted at individuals. So defamation saves us from election misinformation. That’s not true.”
Ronnell Andersen Jones, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Utah, said it’s not surprising that most of the lawsuits have been settled. In the United States, there are very high hurdles to proving defamation against media outlets.
“Trial trials are very expensive. Defamation juries are notoriously unpredictable beasts,” she said. “It is unreasonable to expect shareholders, investors, owners, employees of this company to have to take on the financial risk of pursuing litigation that may come out (against them). It’s unreasonable for them to have to take that financial risk to more fully correct public records. I’m honestly surprised Fox Dominion didn’t take hold long before they did. .”
At least with Smartmatic, some of that calculation may change. LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman has reportedly invested millions of dollars into the company’s defamation lawsuits, including an ongoing lawsuit against Fox.
But in the context of election misinformation that continues to contaminate U.S. political discourse, the settlement gives the impression that those who spread misinformation can get away with it if they are willing to pay up. There is a possibility that it will remain.
Trials also hold a unique place in the American psyche as a place where truth is established. Therefore, in cases centered on the dissemination of lies, a trial would naturally seem to be the antidote.
“Defamation courts can be incredibly powerful when it comes to debunking misinformation,” said Daniel Rauch, a law professor at the University of Maryland. “At its best, a defamation verdict is an authoritative, factual statement that all members of the general community, whatever their background or politics, can agree is a lie.
“This is a real sign of credibility, especially in a time when other ‘falsifiers’ are highly distrustful. And that’s a signal you can’t get from an out-of-court settlement. ”
The trial is also a unique opportunity for the public to hear from witnesses who are responsible for false allegations. The opportunity to hear pre-sworn testimony from people like Tucker Carlson and Rupert Murdoch at the Fox trial would have been a special moment to hear the thoughts of those responsible for broadcasting false information.
sign up for The Stakes — US Election Edition
The Guardian guides you through the turmoil of a presidential election with huge consequences.
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may include information about charities, online advertising, and content sponsored by external parties. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and are subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
After newsletter promotion
“Especially when we consider the persistent and persistent lies weaponized by the ideology of some sections of the population, debunked testimony has a veracity that is difficult to refute or move the needle in repairing society’s narrative.” This kind of ambiguous reporting of a judge’s order is unlikely to be the case,” Jones said.
A defamation case that went to court also served as a strong demonstration of the limits courts have on correcting public records. A Washington, D.C., jury last year ordered Rudy Giuliani to pay more than $148 million in damages for lying about Freeman and Moss after the election.
Mr. Giuliani did not provide evidence in the case, and the judge presiding over the case ruled that his statements were false and by default. And Giuliani showed little remorse during the proceedings, standing on the courthouse steps repeating lies about Freeman and Moss. He quickly declared bankruptcy, and Freeman and Moss have been in court ever since to collect the judgment.
And even if litigants spare no expense and overcome all hurdles to go to trial, the trial itself may not actually change anyone’s mind.
Lidsky cautioned against expecting too much from the trial. She cited President Trump’s refusal to accept the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case as an example of how libel trials may not actually change anyone’s mind.
“The population as a whole has not accepted a definitive declaration of truth,” she says. “Some people continue to believe what they want to believe through motivated reasoning.”
