Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
In sum, Fox won the case, because it established that the FCC's policy against news distortion was not enforceable.
|
No, that not what was "established". All of the claims that Akre and Wilson made against the TV station regarding "distortion"
WERE DISMISSED during the initial trial. The only claim that Akre prevailed on, and the only aspect of the case that was later reviewed on appeal, was whether or not Akre "was a whistle-blower because
she believed there were violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and because
she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission."
You also know that neither Akre of Wilson ever did file a claim with the FCC, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
The jury believed that the plaintiff had been fired because she threatened to complain about the distortion, but because the policy against distortion did not rise to the level of a regulation, she could not prevail. Yes the can can reasonably be said Fox won a case that said that it was legal for it to distort the news and fire someone for complaining about the distortion. Are you going to suggest that "distortion" is not the same a lying?
Regards,
D-Ray
|
So, you're claiming that a case in which a plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the defendant lied, and the court decides with the defendant that the plaintiff failed to make their case, if the equivalent of the court declaring that its OK to lie? Really? Sorry counselor, you'll need to do better than that.
Alternatively, if you were counsel for the defendant in such a case, you wouldn't ask the court to closely scrutinize the law in this case to determine whether or not the language of the law / regulations were enforceable?