The FOX News Settlement...

$787.5 Million - which is way more than Dominion is even worth

So what was really at issue here? I believe that Fox News lost this lawsuit in pre-trial hearings when the Judge assigned basically told FOX that they would not be allowed to really put up any real 1st amendment "defense".

FOX wanted to argue that the lawsuit against Dominion was the news and that it was justified under the first amendment (and a slew of other common sense news ideals) that even a bad lawsuit that had little chance of winning was news. That seems like a valid argument and certainly something that news organizations have done forever. Just because they might not think someone is guilty of a crime, doesn't mean they cannot report on the charges. Just they might think another person is guilty, doesn't mean that their not-guilty plea and subsequent defense at trial is not news. They might even interview relevant people in the prosecution or defense teams (even someone they disagree with). You know, because a lawsuit or a trial is news.

But the Judge in this case determined that FOX was not allowed to use this argument. This effectively put FOX in a position to have to defend the "lawsuit" that was filed, rather than defend their reporting of the lawsuit. Apparently the fact that people within FOX believed that the lawsuit was junk was reason enough (according to the judge) to simply ignore the lawsuit all together and not report on it. Which, of course is little more than censorship or in this case self censorship. Apparently the fact that they did not self-censor the lawsuit all together was the problem.

Was this something that FOX could have appealed if they went through with the trial? I have read some legal analysis that suggested as much. But they would have to actually go through the trial, likely lose (based on the criteria being set by the Judge) and then go through an appeals process. That would have looked bad and the settlement saves the embarrassment of going through a trial.

But the slippery slope being created here is mindboggling. Anything that any networks reports on that ends up not being true could be cause for a defamation settlement, even if the allegations or questions are "news" at the time. All the lawsuit would need is an acknowledgement from anyone at the news organization that they questioned the validity of the allegations to allow for a lawsuit. eg: Imagine had some executive from a major network believed that the "Russian collusion" story was a lie about Donald Trump. The story is no longer news, but an actual allegation that now opens up the network for liability. Really scary stuff.