[flagged]
Fox vs Dominion was not a criminal case, nor was the government involved. It was two private parties and one party (Dominion) was claiming $2 billion in damage to their business from defamation. The government doesn't do anything here other than a judge preceding over the case.
Dominion can even bring up business records, sales forecast and more to back up their damages claims. Ultimately Fox settled because they feared things from discovery going public and Dominion having a strong case against them. There was not even a judge involved in the settlement. It's the two private parties agreeing to end the lawsuit in exchange for terms, in this case payment.
Meanwhile with the Seagate case, this is in criminal territory, the government would be prosecuting the company directly but also has laws that defines the existence of fines and the size of the fines.
What you're failing to understand is that things like this are very muchn out of balance. I'm not saying fox should be less, I'm saying those knowingly in violation of national security export restrictions should be punished more.
There's a big difference between "you said lies about me" and "I sold equipment to our enemies". That you missed that point is sad.
You might try to complain, but not so effectively you might find.
That America makes lobbying legal is a travesty of democracy in full display, talk about the naked emperor.
Trade sanctions are generally an extension of national security policy whereas defamation isn't and it's difficult to argue that Dominion was actually impacted financially over this. The items Seagate sold in violation represented well over 10% of their yearly revenue.
So... Fox News negotiated a good deal, Seagate was just handed an amazingly good deal. I guess because it's easier for former government people to secure Fox News positions than to get cushy no shown jobs at Seagate.
APAC.
All politicians are corrupt.
If you believe that the penalty for Seagate is too low, lobby the government for stricter penalties (most politicians should be receptive, I’d have thought).
If you believe the settlement for Fox is too high, ask their lawyers why they went for it.
Except for one being a defamation case and the other being an export violation case these are apples to apples comparisons. These are both civil violations and these are both negotiated deals between the parties.
Fox News managed to settle for about half of what the case was asking for which is likely very decent to deal for them as I think they would have lost big time and you never know what a jury will award in a case like this. They got a pretty safe deal although quite costly.
Seagate on the other hand was given the deal of a lifetime for their violation. If you look up the maximum penalties allowed to be sought it is twice the amount of the transaction which is the basis for the violation. Reading the article the violation is 1.1 billion dollars. So the maximum penalty should have been 2.2 billion. They were let off with a measly 300 million.
This is not about a lobbying the government for stiffer penalties, because those penalties are on the books already, this is about the government giving Seagate a sweetheart deal because people in the department of commerce are setting up future positions to work in companies like this. I would suggest you take a long hard look and you see where a bureaucrats that work for these government organizations go to once they leave these organizations.
The judge didn't force the settlement - just let people on both sides figure out what the range of likely outcomes was. Then both sides chose to give up their best-case outcome in order to avoid their worst-case outcome.
The question under discussion was, could the government put pressure on Dominion to drop the suit. Well, who would put that pressure on? Not the judicial branch.
The idea that 750m is enough to pay your blood debts for actively inciting an insurrection while knowing everything you say is false is actually the odd one out, not a corporation selling things it knowingly shouldn't.
Because we heard 4 years of Russian collusion lies repeated almost daily. No matter how many times they were proven to be lies and the people who were predisposed to believing those lies believe them even more and the people who were not were not swayed by the lie. The issue with Dominion Fox News is exactly the same. The lies spread by Fox News were only believed by the people who already wanted to believe it.
If Fox News was pushed upon the prison population with no other alternate choice for the people to get news then according to your own statement it would have shaped the narrative of all peoples in the prison thus not leading to riots. If Fox News was again the only option but some people believed and other people did not believe then it supports my position that those who were predisposed to believing the outrageousness of this claim chose to believe it while others chose not to.
Also keep in mind that while this is a particularly large and settlement because it is against a company other media outlets as of late have also settled for definition suits against individuals. All mainstream media seems to be intentionally polarizing and using lies to do it. Often times they back down quick enough from their lies to not get a lawsuit but it's the initial lie that they know that they told is the one that spread the farthest.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/548794-there-was-tru...
And no one calls “The Hill” “liberal media”
Indeed of Russia has interfered in a great many elections in an attempt to influence their outcome. This was true and 2016 as it's been true for as long as Russia has been a thing and before that the USSR. This is only news to someone who is willfully ignorant of international politics and I also ask you what do you think the CIA does on a day-to-day basis?
The reports have continually found that there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Reading from the reports you can see they considered a troubling amount of connection between the two but that is the benefit of 5+ years of investigation a hindsight. The reports do not anywhere point out collusion which is an active working together of both parties. It only points out that there was external influence.
People who don't like Trump attempted to invent collusion where it didn't exist. This is no different than people who did not like Hillary Clinton who wanted to invent reasons to lock her up over an email server. Both sides showed an extreme ignorance where the facts are involved. Hence why Hillary was not charged with that crime and Trump was never charged with collusion.
How is this not “collusion”? I didn’t follow the whole thing closely at all. This isn’t meant to be a political argument. I don’t trust either party.
None of the reports found there to be actual collusion which means that both parties in this case would be Russia and the Trump campaign as a whole, or at least those directing the Trump campaign including Trump himself, would have had to be working together with them to change the election. This is what the reports could not find. They could find that Russia did exert influence into the election and against the Trump campaign and certain individuals but that does not collusion make.
Even if you take the point that there was two bad actors in the Trump campaign actively colluding with Russia That does not mean the Trump campaign as a whole was in collusion with Russia. Again the report supports this position that there was no collusion from the campaign. There was influence and manipulation but I ask you what does the CIA do on a day-to-day basis if not the same thing.
I would submit if you spent 5 years investigating any presidential campaign of the last 50 years you would find similar evidence of manipulation from the USSR or Russia because it is how the game is played. Just as the United States actively influences elections around the world to ensure outcomes are in line with what we want to see.
If that's the case, why are they forking out $700m, the largest non-class action settlement in history?
I suggest you look up the history around Hustler magazine and Jerry Falwell. This is an example where no reasonable person would believe the things hustler said about Jerry Falwell therefore there was no libel or defamation against him. Because the point isn't if someone is actually influenced it's if a reasonable person could be influenced.
In the case of Fox News it is my opinion that nobody was actually influenced but as a news reporting agency spreading known false information a reasonable person could be influenced by it. My opinion that no one actually was influenced by it is because the polarization of our media is at such an extreme that only people tune in to the media they want that supports their confirmation bias.