Rupert Murdoch is personally responsible for incalculable harm to prosperity and democracy across the West.

Can you stretch your imagination to a scenario in which a hostile administration, eager to shut down critical reporting, might declare that various outlets are engaging in fake news and must thus be shut down? Let's be glad a precedent wasn't set.

While I do agree with you (and unlike the other reply, I want to acknowledge that this bad-faith kind of thing happened with Louisiana declaring law enforcement a protected class), my hope was that this would have happened via Dominion's civil lawsuit, which could have been structured to name anchors & reporters individually as well as the larger Fox News organization.

I can, and I've specifically said "guilty/liable", meaning that people will go to the highest court available to them to defend their rights. If in the last instance they are still found guilty/liable, they should suffer the consequences I've mentioned. These legal decisions, by multiple courts/juries, if you can't trust them anymore you have already lost in terms of democracy/republic.

I still believe the SCOTUS is trying to uphold the principles in the Constitution, for now. And there are already limits on what on can say in public, yelling fire in a theater when there's no fire is not far from what FOX is doing. Lying at this scale to cause panic based on such lies has demonstrable deleterious effects on society. The effect is delayed due to the scale of the target groups, but the principle is the same and courts/juries are able to observe this when it happens.

"Yelling fire in a theater" was the reasoning used to shut down anti-war protesters 100 years ago and, IIRC, charge them with sedition. It's not a good example.

If you are alluding the Holmes’ judgement, he spoke not simply about free speech, but about actions in service to a market place of ideas.

His argument was in defense of the process to uncover truth.

Given that Fox has clearly said they cannot be taken seriously, and that they were from inception created to muddy the waters and wage war for political gain, they are an enemy to the process that was envisioned back in that era.

If someone is demonstrably selling false goods, and multiple sources have evidenced this, as has a court of law, should that all be dismissed because every single individual in America has not taken the time to look at the evidence?

At some point you abdicate roles and responsibilities to others, so that they can do the job of ensuring that a fair debate takes place.

> still believe the SCOTUS is trying to uphold the principles in the Constitution, for now

Republicans on court are very clearly pusuing agenda that has nothing to do with that.

I agree some of their decisions are politically biased but they have taken some decisions against Trump too. It's clearly unbalanced, and that's mainly because Republicans used every dirty trick in the book to prevent Obama from picking a Justice he was supposed to.

The upcoming decision about tariffs might flip me completely on this issue, I see zero legal reason for global tariffs to be within the power of any individual, including the President. If the Court presents any argument in favor of them, I don't think I will consider it legitimate anymore.

Afraid of precedent? Your comment gave me a chuckle, but not in the way you think.

You forgot the /s

People love being lied to like that, though.

Oh the Murdoch Empire is a more than deft hand at escaping any meaningful comeuppance. As I recall, in a court case brought against them by Prince Harry, they just folded and accepted they were guilty.

I believe that admission was because ending the trial and eating the judgement, was less damaging than allowing the light of discovery and trial ingress into their workings.