erlandodk at 2024-02-07 11:14:05+00:00 ID: kpbe4vn

Det er ikke helt korrekt.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil—district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—heard the case and agreed, finding that “given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes” and that “this overheated rhetoric is precisely the kind of pitched commentary that one expects when tuning in to talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight, with pundits debating the latest political controversies.”

“The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation,” wrote Vyskocil in her ruling.

Carlson isn’t the only opinion show host to win a lawsuit with such a defense: David Folkenflik of NPR noted that Rachel Maddow’s lawyers used a similar argument to convince a judge to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought by One America News Network. The judge ruled that Maddow’s comments about an OANN reporter being “on the payroll for the Kremlin” could reasonably be understood to be opinion.

But while Fox’s lawyers argued Carlson’s opinion show should not be taken for news, Fox hasn’t argued that all of its content is “entertainment” as Occupy Democrats claims.

Så argumentet var, at et "fornuftigt menneske" burde kunne se igennem Tucker Carlsons retorik.

Nu er spørgsmålet så, om der er nogle "fornuftige mennesker" overhovedet, der ser Tucker Carlson.