Floyd Abrams is the doyen
of First Amendment law in America,
and he's joining me now from New York.
Floyd Abrams, it's
great to have you on on this day
to to take us through this.
So from your perspective,
you know, essentially
defending the media.
Is this a case
where justice has been done,
do you think?
I think justice has been done
in the broadest monetary sense
that we've ever seen, really
in any libel case in American history.
Whether justice has been done
in the sense that the lesson
that Fox News
and perhaps others will learn
is to be not only more careful,
but simply not to engage in the sort of
of false editorializing
and putting people on who lie.
You know, I can't say I'm that optimist
I take that that that will change much.
But I think that's at least
a waving red flag.
What do you make of the fact that
and how did folks get away with
or is this de rigueur for settlement
not having to apologize on air
for its defamation?
And also, as you noted, in its statement,
it said that the
I believe it
said it acknowledges
that the judge found certain statements
about dominion to be false.
Well, the judge said
every single statement that Fox News
reported about Dominion and
the election was false.
That's what the judge said.
That is what is obviously true.
The judge, in a written opinion,
made that very clear.
In fact, he used capital letters.
It is crystal clear.
He said that
all the statements
about Dominion were false.
And so they were.
Well,
it seems like a massive game of
chicken was being played.
I mean, right down to the
to the last second
the jury had been seated.
The opening arguments were due to start.
You know, there'd been this delay
the day before.
Well, you know, this the procedure.
What do you think
was happening behind the scenes
talking or
talking about talking
Both sides had an interest
in disposing of the case.
Fox's interest as obvious
because
it would have been,
at least in the broad public opinion,
ruinous in terms of how people,
not the Fox viewers,
But but how more people viewed Fox
as a propaganda outfit.
So there was a lot
a lot of reason for them to settle
The other reason was
I think they probably would have lost,
even though we have a legal system
which is very sort of loaded, purposely
in favor of free speech,
which makes it very hard
to win a libel case like this.
But this one was a very strong case
And then looking back on it,
certainly it's not surprising
that Fox would make every effort
to somehow put this behind it.
And why do you think then
Dominion settled, you know?
Yeah, why?
Well, you know, Dominion is a business of
dominion is business
as not not litigation,
but but to make itself whole again,
no one's ever won or obtained
an amount like this.
If if there's anything that can be gained
by a libel case in the sense
that the public to the extent
the public followed this,
the public would know that
that that Fox had
erred or really worse than purposely
put false information on the air.
Dominion has done that.
Whether the Fox viewers
will view Fox any less cordially
and in terms of inviting it
into their home, I rather doubt it.
Let me ask you about
some of the tweets from Andrew Neil,
who used to be an insider.
You know, he ran Murdoch's
Sunday Times here in the U.K.
He ran Sky News at one point.
And I spoke to him yesterday.
Right
as we thought this trial was going ahead.
After the settlement,
he tweeted
that it doesn't
end there for Rupert Murdoch.
Another voting machine company,
Smartmatic, is suing for 2.7 billion
with perhaps even a stronger case.
Plus, his shareholders
could sue him or Fox, the parent company,
for diminishing their assets.
One already has.
And he goes on to say,
but it's already cost far,
far more than the U.K.
hatching hacking scandal
with much more financial exposure.
Still to come
will strengthen
that part of the Murdoch family,
which wants to dump Fox News.
What do you make of that?
Do you think that. Yeah, go ahead.
No, know,
I'm sure
I think that's quite a prescient
observation.
It's all the things
on that list of statements
I think are accurate.
Yes, there certainly will be litigation
by shareholder FOX.
And yes, certainly
in terms of Fox's reputation
and whether
people at Fox on the financial side
will really want to continue
with Fox News, that that's a harder one.
Certainly, Fox News is by far
the best known Fox product,
whether Fox,
whether the people who run Fox
will have found this all so distasteful
that that they'll even think about
divesting itself from Fox News
as a precedent.
I don't think anybody has any idea.
But let's ask the bigger question.
And Floyd Abrams,
you've been in the middle of this
for four decades.
You know, a free and independent press
in a democratic country is a
is a major
and important pillar
of a functioning democracy.
Do you think this trial has made that
more likely and less
or do we think that Fox and the attendant
even further
right wing
conspiracy theorists and all the others
will continue to get up to mischief
with their so-called
reporting or commentating
on the upcoming elections? Yeah,
look,
my judgment, my guess
is that Fox will not change
much.
My guess would be that, yes, they'll
they'll send instructions down,
you know, don't do this
sort of thing again.
We don't
we don't need this trouble
and this enormous
amount of money being being paid out.
But in terms of whether Fox will change
what I'll call editorial policy, we'll
well move it all off towards the center
or even to caring more about avoiding
the correct charge of propaganda.
One can't tell.
My guess is I'm afraid now
you say the correct charge of propaganda.
That's interesting.
Dominion lawyer Justin Nelson,
after the settlement said this to CNN.
Take a listen.
I do hope that this really does
send a message
that it is so, so important
to tell the truth
and that if you don't tell
the truth, lies have consequences.
And I think this is what it established.
And that is why
there is accountability today.
There's accountability to dominion
and there's accountability to democracy.
So, Floyd Abrams, we
discussed a little bit
the other side of that question is
how does this, in the bigger picture,
potentially change
the decades
old New York Times versus Sullivan
of 1964
which established a very, very high bar
for libel and defamation
it's almost impossible
for media companies
to lose in these cases.
Do you think in the future
either the Supreme Court or elsewhere
that law, that precedent will be changed?
Well, first,
I don't think it will be changed
because of the result.
The settlement in this case
As for whether it will be changed
because we've had a change of membership
on our Supreme Court
that is more possible
now than it had been in the past.
Two members of the court have already
in writing urged that it be changed.
And there's reason to think
that there are more
that would be if I had to guess,
I would say
it will not change
in the foreseeable future.
I don't think that five of our nine
Supreme Court
justices are going to be prepared to say
that this precedent from 1964,
which certainly in general has served us
well as a freedom protecting body of law.
I don't think that
there are going to be five votes
but I may be,
as they say, whistling Dixie.
So finally, let me ask
you from your decades
and decades of experience in this.
What feeling do you have right now.
You know
you started many many years ago
defending the press as well as many other
you know, corporate cases.
You've taken all the rest of it.
But what's your feeling now
looking back at history
and to the future?
It was very important, in my view,
for Fox
and one way
or the other to lose this case.
For one thing, New York Times versus
Sullivan is not an impenetrable barrier
to plaintiffs with very good cases
winning.
I think, as I'll bet Fox thought
that there was a very good chance
Fox would lose this case
had it gone to the jury.
I think it's more likely than not
that that would have happened
in terms of the impact
really on democracy.
I think we're better off
for having had this case.
I think it does send a message
I think it is a warning,
at least to the sort of entities
that would be prepared
to engage in the worst excesses
of of the worst of journalism,
to be careful that that it is not a
get out of jail free card
that the Supreme Court has given.
It's just very, very hard to win
a libel case here
brought by a public figure.
And it should be.