All Episodes
Previous Next
April 24, 2023 - Lionel Nation
14:17
Learning the Lessons From Dominion
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin, dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today.
And take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty man safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
Hello.
Are we still talking about the Dominion verdict?
Are we still talking about this?
What does it mean?
What's the takeaway?
What do we do?
Especially if you're a new...
Broadcaster, if you're a podcaster, oh yeah, this applies to you as well.
Don't think it's just big shot TV programmers.
It's everybody.
Now let's go through a couple of things and add some light there while we're at it.
First and foremost, this is the interesting thing.
Dominion had to prove that what Fox News said about it was malicious, meaning that it was said with malice.
If Fox News was just a regular, plain old defendant, it would have been easy.
Just prove negligence.
Just prove you said it.
And it has to be false, and it has to be a statement of fact.
Remember that.
To defame someone, you have to lie.
It can't be true.
Remember this, though.
When you say something that's not true, it may not be malicious.
It could be negligent.
You might just say, well, I thought you were Martians.
I didn't realize that when I said you were Martians, you weren't, or a member of some organization.
That's the usual stuff.
If you're just a regular defendant, just some Joe Blow.
Did you say this?
Yes.
Is it false?
Yes.
Did it cause damages?
Yes.
That's it!
We don't care about your intent.
We don't care about your state of mind.
Did you say this?
Did you say this?
Yes.
That's it.
But, if the plaintiff, Dominion, is a public figure, well, they've got this extra little burden under the New York Times against Sullivan.
They've got to prove that the statements made We're with malice.
Either one of two things.
They were made, knowingly made, knowing they were false.
Let me rephrase that.
Knowing they were not true.
Knowing they were lies.
Knowing that what they were saying was incorrect.
And number two, if that doesn't work, with a reckless disregard for the truth.
So that's tough.
Remember, if Fox News was just a regular defendant, it'd be easy.
But you've got to prove malice.
How in the name of God do you prove malice?
How do you do this?
Text messages.
Now, that's part of this.
You very rarely, rarely, rarely get to see malice so beautifully drawn out and delivered.
Malice!
You've got your top tier A-list.
You know.
Commentators?
Are they reporters?
No.
Are they commentators?
Are they opinionators?
But they're basically saying to each other, can we say this?
This guy's nuts.
This guy's crazy.
This is nuts.
What are we doing?
What are you talking about?
You got it?
You got it?
Oh my God.
Well, you got those text messages.
Oh my God.
Can you imagine Rupert Murdoch having these text messages blown up in front of juries?
Now, let me ask you something, Mr. Hannity or Ms. Zingrum or whatever.
Is your statement right there?
May I read this?
And whatever it says.
And you could argue, those were taken out of context.
Please, tell me how they're taken out of context.
Please, please.
Now, it's not that easy.
There's some other little glitches here.
And then you've got this issue of maybe there's some kind of a nuanced presentation.
You see, what if...
Forget the messages.
Forget we don't have these people yapping and yammering.
I hope they pulled...
I hope everybody lost everybody's cell phone and go to Snapchat or whatever these invisible things are.
Why they're...
They probably thought nothing of it.
I'll bet you anything that these geniuses never thought like, do you think that maybe what we're saying could actually be the basis of proving malice?
I think, no.
Why?
Well, we're invincible.
We're millionaires.
We're brilliant.
Okay, fine.
Let's assume the following happens.
Whether it's Lou Dobbs or Judge Jeanine or Laura Ingraham or whoever.
Let's say somebody says, you know, I'm listening to what you're saying about this.
Remember, this isn't about the 2024 election, per se.
It's about Dominion being there.
Not that Trump had the election stolen, but Dominion, their responsibility.
What happens if somebody says, you know what, I've got to tell you something.
I've been listening to you, whoever it is, whoever these various folks are, Sidney Powell or Rudy Giuliani, but I've got to tell you something.
I think you're right.
Is that okay?
It's an opinion!
This is axiomatic, we all know, that an opinion is not a statement of fact.
An opinion is a different story.
What happens if that happens?
What happens then?
That's a fascinating case.
But then again, when you have people on, now here is the issue, and this is the bottom line, this is the gravamen, this is the number one issue there is.
This is what is the issue.
What if you're a news show, and you say, we have a news story tonight.
Tonight, there's a whole bunch of people, Sidney Powell, and this one and that one, are making these statements about Dominion.
And that Dominion was responsible and they've got servers and wherever the hell they are.
And that Dominion deliberately did these things.
And these people are making these claims.
And they're saying stuff like, I guarantee you, I will prove to you that we have this.
How does Fox News report on that?
When CNN, I'm sure, Or MSNBC or anybody else said, do you know what those people are doing?
They're reporting.
They're replicating.
They are republishing these libelous statements.
Because after all, remember, in the case of New York Times against Sullivan, the only thing New York Times did was just report the case, the matter.
That's all it did.
It just...
It just provided the platform and published it.
This letter or whatever it was at the time.
How do you report on somebody making claims?
How do you report?
What happens if you have somebody making a specious claim, irrespective of malism when you can prove it, but you're a news organization, you say, you're not going to believe this.
There's a guy here who's claiming that big pharma company XY, whatever it is, is putting out something that's injurious to the public or whatever it is.
Can we have them on?
Are we advocating what they're saying?
No, we're having them repeat what they're saying.
Yeah, but what if they're libelous?
Half of what we have on could be libelous.
How do we report on what people are saying but exclude the libelous if the statement being made is newsworthy?
How does that work?
See, this is the essence.
This is the essence and this is where I grab My Constitution, with all my stickers on the back from voting.
This is it.
Because you see, the First Amendment deals, of course, with Congress shall pass no law, but it deals with the idea of governmental institutions and governmental agencies and governmental instruments, namely the courts, quashing, quelling, suppressing legitimate speech under the guise of something else.
How do we talk about things?
Do you flash disclaimers?
We're not standing by this.
This guy's crazy.
Do you impeach the credibility of your, to use evidentiary terms?
I don't know.
If you're listening to me right now, and you're a podcaster, and there's somebody making something, we heard stuff during the COVID period that was absolutely insane.
Not on both sides, whatever that means, but from every part of the argument, we heard everything.
I mean, it was wild!
Wild!
Insane!
We did.
We heard that.
But I found it entertaining.
Whether it's right or wrong or misinformation or data information or disinformation or whatever it was, to me it was interesting.
For me, in my opinion, I would say, okay, I hear things all the time that I think, personally speaking, is not clinically insane, but is baseless.
I kind of find that interesting.
I can make up my mind.
I can make up my mind.
Could I please go to have a forum where I can hear that?
Don't worry about the disclaimers.
I won't hold you accountable.
You're just reporting them.
You're just saying that somebody else is saying these things.
That's all.
I, in my opinion, love to hear everything.
Should there be a limitation somewhere on speech?
I think so.
Let me ask you a question.
And I want you to respond below if you agree with me.
One thing I wish we would do that I don't think we need to hear, and I think we'd be better off without it, maybe not under...
Some kind of governmental mandate, but just under an agreement among people that whenever there are these mass shooters and murderers, we don't publish their name.
We don't publish their name or their picture or where they lived or their manifestos or their dreams or their ideas or their political ideologies.
We don't give them a posthumous platform to lure and to encourage the next killer from perhaps seeking posthumous fame.
That's what I wish we would do.
That's what I wish we would do.
I could do without that information.
That I could do.
Do you agree with me?
Not mandated by the government, mind you.
Not mandated, but I wish people would just agree to this.
Just agree.
Because what you're doing is you're actually fueling, in my humble opinion, you're fueling the fire.
You're actually encouraging people from doing this again by seeking Their own form of glory.
I thank you for your time.
Thank you for your support of the channel, your donations, your help, your encouragement, your comments, your incredibly exquisite...
explications of thought, limbing and the like, your appraisal, your commentary.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Thank you for subscribing to the channel.
Thank you for liking this.
It's very important.
It helps the algorithms tremendously.
▲
Export Selection