\u00a0The law is really all about stories of the past.\u00a0\u00a0The decisions made by jurists long dead still influence our law today.\u00a0\u00a0The origins of the American legal system goes all the way back to the English Courts of Assizes, the first circuit judges in the 12th<\/sup>\u00a0Century whose decisions set precedence that still carry weight in the English legal system, and even here in the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the 1980’s I spent a brief sojourn at the University of Cincinnati’s Law School where I made it through “Torts” class. \u00a0\u00a0\u201cTorts\u201d are damages committed by a person against another. Today it is the basis for many of our civil law suits.\u00a0\u00a0On the first day we learned this “story”.\u00a0\u00a0In the 13th<\/sup>\u00a0century,\u00a0\u00a0two boys on a hill found almost identical rocks.\u00a0\u00a0Being boys, they determined to simultaneously throw their rocks over the crest of the hill. (As a teacher and coach, I found that throwing rocks was a genetic predisposition of boys, not unlike spitting off of bridges, cliffs and overhangs).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the rocks were launched, soon followed by a cry of pain.\u00a0\u00a0The boys raced to the top of the hill to see a man on\u00a0the other side with blood streaming down his face.\u00a0\u00a0A rock struck him in the eye, putting it out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neither boy knew whose rock hit the man. Neither did the man himself. But he still took the boys to Court, as it was clear that one of the boys launched the rock that took his eye. And the judge wisely determined that the boys acted with such reckless disregard for the danger of their actions they were BOTH responsible, and the man needed to be compensated for his loss. Each boy\u2019s father had to give the man a pig. There is no record of how the fathers punished their sons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And there it was:\u00a0\u00a0not an \u201ceye for an eye\u201d, but two pigs for one.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second story is more recent.\u00a0\u00a0In a car accident, a young man was paralyzed from the waist down.\u00a0\u00a0It wasn’t his fault, but for the rest of his life, he would require special care, including hospitalizations and procedures, to deal with his paralysis.\u00a0\u00a0In addition, he would never stand to be married, or \u201cwalk his potential daughter\u201d down the aisle.\u00a0\u00a0In fact, his ability to create that daughter would be especially arduous.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So there was all the costs of his care, plus all the costs of his suffering.\u00a0\u00a0And then then there were limits on how much he could earn.\u00a0\u00a0He was seventeen, with a life expectancy of seventy-two years.\u00a0\u00a0Add all of those care, suffering, and loss of income together \u2013 and those were the damages that his lawyer would ask in court.\u00a0\u00a0It was more than two pigs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Law School is all about “what if”. Alter the facts of a case slightly, and then figure out the impact of the change. So, alter this \u201cequation\u201d just slightly, and make the young man a Division I Football prospect, already signed to a major university.\u00a0\u00a0Now his earnings potentials are much greater, and so are the prospective damages.\u00a0\u00a0It might not be \u201cfair\u201d to the person who caused the accident \u2013 he didn\u2019t \u201cintend\u201d to hit a football star.\u00a0\u00a0But he acted in the same \u201creckless disregard\u201d as the two medieval boys with rocks.\u00a0\u00a0And he (or his insurance company) will pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The moral that my Torts professor taught us was this:\u00a0\u00a0in civil law, the only punishment is money.\u00a0\u00a0Courts can\u2019t make others feel the pain and anguish of paralysis, or the loss of an eye.\u00a0\u00a0All Courts can do is try to recompense the injured for their damages.\u00a0\u00a0And that\u2019s all calculable, in cold, hard, cash.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Libel is a special kind of a “tort”, and the law is a bit more complicated.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It is defined in the legal \u201cBible\u201d, Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, as a, \u201cDefamatory statement published through any manner or media.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>Libel is a lie, that \u201cdefames\u201d someone or something.\u00a0\u00a0But libel often runs up against the American \u201cblack letter law\u201d of the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of the press.\u00a0\u00a0So if someone goes on the news and tells lies about someone else, they might be subject to libel, but the news broadcaster might not be.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n What if a news broadcaster intentionally lies about someone (or something), and does it with full \u201cknowledge aforethought\u201d and malice (the intent to harm someone). Or maybe they have that same reckless disregard for the truth of the two boys throwing the stones. Then they can be held accountable for their libelous statements.\u00a0\u00a0And like the poor one-eyed man, or the paralyzed seventeen year-old athlete, the damages are calculable in cold, hard, cash.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We now know that Fox News broadcasters intentionally, willfully, and with \u201cfull knowledge aforethought\u201d lied about the Dominion voting machines in the 2020 election.\u00a0\u00a0They did it, because the lies improved their ratings, kept their viewership, and therefore maintained their profits.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0They not only lied, but they did it for their own financial benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It wasn\u2019t just about Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and other the sad Trump lawyers appearing on Fox News and telling their lies over and over again.\u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s that the Fox News personnel knew that they were lying, and continued to amplify those lies.\u00a0\u00a0We have the texts, even recordings, where Fox New personnel acknowledged the lies, and that they were doing it to continue their profits – “malice aforethought”. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I know that many of those politically \u201caligned\u201d with me are disappointed today.\u00a0\u00a0We were all hoping for a weeks-long flagellation of Fox News by the Dominion lawyers. But yesterday, as the Court prepared for opening statements, Fox and Dominion settled. There will be no weeks of airing Fox News impropriety, no Tucker Carlson on the stand admitting to his lies.\u00a0\u00a0But remember, it\u2019s a civil case.\u00a0\u00a0No one, not even Rupert Murdock himself, would ever go to jail from this case.\u00a0 So we should\u00a0take this \u201cwin\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fox Corporation is going to \u201cfor sure\u201d pay Dominion (and its lawyers)\u00a0\u00a0$787.5 MILLION.\u00a0\u00a0And they\u2019re going to do it soon, not in a few years, but in months.\u00a0\u00a0Sure Dominion asked for $1.6 Billion, and there was the potential for even more in punitive damages.\u00a0\u00a0But Dominion has the right to determine the \u201cvalue\u201d of their \u201ceye\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0And if $787.5 MILLION makes them \u201cwhole\u201d – then good for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCold, Hard, Cash<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What If<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Libel<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
We Know<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Get What You Need\u00a0\u00a0<\/h3>\n\n\n\n