You've set up a strawman
No, I haven't, and my posts are clearly visible for all to see. I argued that the idea behind suing Fox is not meritless, and when cornered you have attempted to rebut that contention by narrowly referring to the single lawsuit that was filed.
I argued that the lawsuit being proposed by the OP is meritless.
And now you're already being inconsistent. The OP said Fox should be sued; he/she didn't lay out a detailed cause of action or endorse the suit that was filed. So you're broadly attempting to argue that any such lawsuit would be meritless, and then when cornered you're shifting the discussion to the merits of the specific lawsuit that was filed. This is crude and obvious.
whether a particular case is meritless or not turns on the application of the law to a specific set of facts.
And once again, you're trying to muddle your argument. There are three separate arguments:
1) There are no legal grounds for suing a broadcaster for deliberately lying to their audience and encouraging them to behave in a way that led to foreseeably catastrophic effects
2) Maybe there are legal grounds, but the facts don't support that Fox did this
3) Maybe there are legal grounds and maybe Fox could be sued, but this specific case is meritless
I'm arguing that 1) is not true, despite the received wisdom of a distressingly large number of people. You're dancing between arguments as needed.
Second, I'm not sure why you think the case brought in Washington wasn't "ripe." It alleged injury.
And this is where I'm starting to question your alleged legal knowledge. This complaint doesn't really allege injury. The gravamen of the complaint is:
"Defendants actions dissuaded the public, including elderly viewers, from taking necessary precautions to protect themselves from contracting the virus".
That's a true and probably provable assertion, but it's not really much of an injury. The real implied injury here -- people getting sick and/or dying, suffering economic loss, etc. -- is still largely potential and occuring as part of a complex, still-unfolding crisis that is only in its early stages. In other words, this isn't a ripe claim. You're trying to get a check from the insurance company while the building is still on fire.
I am absolutely certain that when the Washington case is dismissed it will not be on ripeness grounds
I'm happy that's your "expert" opinion. Although once again, you're building something of a strawman. I didn't say that suit would be dismissed on ripeness grounds. I said the claim wasn't ripe, which was one of several reasons why the suit was amateurish and largely unserious. It may get dismissed for any number of reasons.
that you are equating with 'ripeness' is you belief that the plaintiffs didn't provide adequate evidentiary support
And, wrong, as already stated. The fact you seem to be having trouble with the concept of ripeness is concerning.
Assuming the "testimony" could be marshaled
Yes, reports and "testimony" from experts have never been marshalled in preparation for a major class action lawsuit before. The idea of retaining, let's say, a nationally known epidemiologist, to prepare a report that attempts to quantify, using statistical evidence and expert opinion, the extent of the damage caused by Fox's actions... well that's just unheard-of.
because media outlets don't owe the kind of duty to their audience
Well, now we're finally getting to the legal part. Took you long enough. You're wrong, hence why you've been trying to differentiate this from my lead example, but at least you're finally stating it rather than trying to hand-waive over it.
to say nothing of the barrier the plaintiffs would have in proving causation
Gee, I seem to remember someone talking about preparing (or should we say "marshaling"?) data and expert opinions in order to establish causation. Hmm...where did I seet that?
Finally, your lack of experience in this arena shows in your statement that News Corp is "preemptively spending tens of millions
lol, well, ok, you've got me on some hyperbole. Fair enough, not tens of millions. But if you think a major law factory is onboard doing prep for only "tens of thousands"... lol
I've been part of teams of lawyers asserting first amendment defenses on behalf of major broadcast networks, cable networks, and newspapers.
Ah, interesting. I guess I'll leave it to other readers to decide whether this makes you a neutral observer or not.
There's really not much more to say here. I'll point out only one additional thing: both Fox and their sympathizers, while they may issue press releases dismissing this whole idea as "frivolous", are in fact spending a whole lot of time trying to demarcate what was aired as individual opinion rather than representations of fact or editorials from Fox itself. They're doing this for a reason, and it's not because they feel like wasting paper.
= new reply since forum marked as read
