計票系統公司揚言要因“陰謀論”起訴??怂剐侣?
在大選結束后的幾周內,一些特朗普支持者在做客??怂剐侣勁_和其他媒體時曾多次表示,計票系統公司Smartmatic幫助拜登在大選中以作弊取勝。這種說法是有問題的——因為除了加利福尼亞州的一個縣外,美國選民最初并未使用Smartmatic系統。
對Smartmatic的指控似乎主要是來自這一網絡系統的用戶而非運營方,而這種指控不僅是造謠傳謠的反面教材,而且也帶來了重大的商業風險。該公司CEO表示,由于爭議,他們在其他國家/地區失去了合同。作為回應,Smartmatic也在周一發布了一項聲明,警告稱,如果??怂剐侣勁_及NewsMax、OANN等小型新聞機構不撤回他們“幾十”項不當言論,該公司將以誹謗的罪名起訴這些媒體。
這些聲明包括特朗普律師魯迪?朱利安尼(Rudy Giuliani)向??怂剐侣勁_主持人盧?多布斯(Lou Dobbs)稱,Smartmatic是另一家投票系統Dominion的控股方,而該公司一直被特朗普抨擊稱在背地里搞陰謀。同時,前特朗普律師西德尼?鮑威爾(Sidney Powell)向??怂拱凳?,Smartmatic和Dominion在不久前的大選中勾結,這還是外國政府密謀的更大棋局的一部分。
這樣的謠言被一再揭穿,美聯社指出:“Dominion和Smartmatic均發表聲明說,兩家競爭公司之間不存在一家持有另一家所有權的關系?!?/p>
一些觀察家認為,Smartmatic決定以誹謗罪威脅??怂购推渌襟w,可能為人們提供了一種新的手段,以對抗特朗普及其盟友在大選失敗后發布的大量虛假信息。研究大選的歷史學家、《感謝您的投票》的作者艾琳?蓋格史密斯(Erin Geiger-Smith)在推特上表示,其他公司和個人也可能采取類似的法律措施。
這樣的舉動似乎對糾正背后有資本贊助的虛假信息越來越有必要。
但是,如果這些惡性事件激增,人們為了糾正它們,可能需要付出十分艱辛的努力,而收獲與之不成比例的低回報率。但個人也可以、并需要這樣做。 https://t.co/KnIK20WKw1
-艾琳?蓋格?史密斯(@erin_gs)2020年12月14日
還有一個問題,就是Smartmatic是否會在法庭上勝訴。長期負責媒體事務的律師埃德?克拉里斯(Ed Klaris)表示,判一家公司誹謗的標準和判一個人誹謗是一樣的,包括需要嚴格地證明其對“知名社會公眾方”造成了“切實的惡性影響”。
克拉里斯說,目前尚不清楚Smartmatic是否足夠“知名”,并達到誹謗罪所要求的受到“切實惡性影響”的標準。他還預測,??怂购芸赡軙噲D將關于該投票系統的言論當作“個人觀點”而非“事實陳述”。盡管“個人意見”(包括在脫口秀節目中即興拋出的問題)通常不在誹謗的范圍內,但法院可能會發現,至少有數十個所謂的“虛假言論”不符合“個人意見”的標準。
Smartmatic的潛在官司也可能有助于對一些更離譜的言論進行司法審查——例如朱利安尼和鮑威爾等人所宣揚的,“委內瑞拉官方密謀控制選舉”。盡管兩人在媒體上一再發表此類的聲明,但他們從未在各類正式的法庭訴訟中講過這些不實言論。法律觀察家說,這是因為,作為律師,他們可能會因為在法官面前提出毫無根據的聲明而受到制裁。
??怂剐侣剾]有回應有關Smartmatic指控的置評請求,OANN也沒有。一直將自己標榜為“??怂箤κ帧?、力挺特朗普的媒體機構Newsmax的發言人則表示,它本身從未直接指控該公司存在不當行為,但其節目嘉賓就Smartmatic的法律文書發表過相關評論。
該媒體機構的發言人說:“正如任何一家主流媒體所應該做的一樣,我們也為公眾提供一個討論焦點事件的論壇。過去,我們就對Smartmatic一派反駁他們認為不準確的說法表示了歡迎,我們也將繼續這樣做?!?/p>
但是,克拉里斯說,在法庭上,“媒體”及其“嘉賓”之間的區別可能并不總是很重要。他指出,誹謗的受害者不僅有權起訴發表不當言論的人,也有權起訴散布言論的渠道。
克拉里斯還指出,如果Smartmatic確實由于對計票系統的虛假聲明而在商業合約上蒙受了損失,那么如果該公司提出索賠要求,將處于有利的地位。
克拉里斯說:“的確,他們正蒙受著損失。這就是有關誹謗的法律旨在解決的問題——解決聲譽受損的問題?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W)
編譯:陳聰聰
在大選結束后的幾周內,一些特朗普支持者在做客??怂剐侣勁_和其他媒體時曾多次表示,計票系統公司Smartmatic幫助拜登在大選中以作弊取勝。這種說法是有問題的——因為除了加利福尼亞州的一個縣外,美國選民最初并未使用Smartmatic系統。
對Smartmatic的指控似乎主要是來自這一網絡系統的用戶而非運營方,而這種指控不僅是造謠傳謠的反面教材,而且也帶來了重大的商業風險。該公司CEO表示,由于爭議,他們在其他國家/地區失去了合同。作為回應,Smartmatic也在周一發布了一項聲明,警告稱,如果??怂剐侣勁_及NewsMax、OANN等小型新聞機構不撤回他們“幾十”項不當言論,該公司將以誹謗的罪名起訴這些媒體。
這些聲明包括特朗普律師魯迪?朱利安尼(Rudy Giuliani)向??怂剐侣勁_主持人盧?多布斯(Lou Dobbs)稱,Smartmatic是另一家投票系統Dominion的控股方,而該公司一直被特朗普抨擊稱在背地里搞陰謀。同時,前特朗普律師西德尼?鮑威爾(Sidney Powell)向??怂拱凳?,Smartmatic和Dominion在不久前的大選中勾結,這還是外國政府密謀的更大棋局的一部分。
這樣的謠言被一再揭穿,美聯社指出:“Dominion和Smartmatic均發表聲明說,兩家競爭公司之間不存在一家持有另一家所有權的關系?!?/p>
一些觀察家認為,Smartmatic決定以誹謗罪威脅??怂购推渌襟w,可能為人們提供了一種新的手段,以對抗特朗普及其盟友在大選失敗后發布的大量虛假信息。研究大選的歷史學家、《感謝您的投票》的作者艾琳?蓋格史密斯(Erin Geiger-Smith)在推特上表示,其他公司和個人也可能采取類似的法律措施。
這樣的舉動似乎對糾正背后有資本贊助的虛假信息越來越有必要。
但是,如果這些惡性事件激增,人們為了糾正它們,可能需要付出十分艱辛的努力,而收獲與之不成比例的低回報率。但個人也可以、并需要這樣做。 https://t.co/KnIK20WKw1
-艾琳?蓋格?史密斯(@erin_gs)2020年12月14日
還有一個問題,就是Smartmatic是否會在法庭上勝訴。長期負責媒體事務的律師埃德?克拉里斯(Ed Klaris)表示,判一家公司誹謗的標準和判一個人誹謗是一樣的,包括需要嚴格地證明其對“知名社會公眾方”造成了“切實的惡性影響”。
克拉里斯說,目前尚不清楚Smartmatic是否足夠“知名”,并達到誹謗罪所要求的受到“切實惡性影響”的標準。他還預測,??怂购芸赡軙噲D將關于該投票系統的言論當作“個人觀點”而非“事實陳述”。盡管“個人意見”(包括在脫口秀節目中即興拋出的問題)通常不在誹謗的范圍內,但法院可能會發現,至少有數十個所謂的“虛假言論”不符合“個人意見”的標準。
Smartmatic的潛在官司也可能有助于對一些更離譜的言論進行司法審查——例如朱利安尼和鮑威爾等人所宣揚的,“委內瑞拉官方密謀控制選舉”。盡管兩人在媒體上一再發表此類的聲明,但他們從未在各類正式的法庭訴訟中講過這些不實言論。法律觀察家說,這是因為,作為律師,他們可能會因為在法官面前提出毫無根據的聲明而受到制裁。
??怂剐侣剾]有回應有關Smartmatic指控的置評請求,OANN也沒有。一直將自己標榜為“??怂箤κ帧?、力挺特朗普的媒體機構Newsmax的發言人則表示,它本身從未直接指控該公司存在不當行為,但其節目嘉賓就Smartmatic的法律文書發表過相關評論。
該媒體機構的發言人說:“正如任何一家主流媒體所應該做的一樣,我們也為公眾提供一個討論焦點事件的論壇。過去,我們就對Smartmatic一派反駁他們認為不準確的說法表示了歡迎,我們也將繼續這樣做?!?/p>
但是,克拉里斯說,在法庭上,“媒體”及其“嘉賓”之間的區別可能并不總是很重要。他指出,誹謗的受害者不僅有權起訴發表不當言論的人,也有權起訴散布言論的渠道。
克拉里斯還指出,如果Smartmatic確實由于對計票系統的虛假聲明而在商業合約上蒙受了損失,那么如果該公司提出索賠要求,將處于有利的地位。
克拉里斯說:“的確,他們正蒙受著損失。這就是有關誹謗的法律旨在解決的問題——解決聲譽受損的問題?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W)
編譯:陳聰聰
In the weeks after the election, guests on Fox News and other Trump-allied media outlets have repeatedly suggested that voting machine company Smartmatic helped rig the outcome for President-elect Joe Biden. The claims are problematic—not least because, aside from one in a California county, U.S. voters didn't use Smartmatic machines in the first place.
For Smartmatic, the claims about its machines—which appear to have come primarily from the networks' guests rather than the hosts—are not just frustrating examples of disinformation but a major business risk as well. According to its CEO, the company has lost contracts in other countries because of the controversy. As a result, Smartmatic issued a statement on Monday warning it will sue Fox News, as well as smaller media outlets NewsMax and OANN, for defamation if they don't retract "dozens" of inaccurate statements.
Such statements include Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani telling Lou Dobbs of Fox News that Smartmatic owned Dominion, a rival voting machine company that has been the target of conspiracy theories promoted by the President. Meanwhile, former Trump attorney Sidney Powell has suggested to Fox that the recent election involved collusion between Smartmatic and Dominion as part of a broader scheme by foreign governments.
Such theories have been repeatedly debunked, with the Associated Press stating that "Both Dominion and Smartmatic have released statements saying no ownership relationship exists between the two competing firms."
According to some observers, Smartmatic's decision to threaten Fox and the other outlets with defamation claims could offer a new tool to combat the flood of disinformation unleashed by Presiden Trump and his allies following his election defeat. Erin Geiger-Smith, an election historian and author of Thank You for Voting, tweeted that other companies and individuals may undertake similar legal campaigns.
Moves like this seem like theya€?ll be increasingly necessary to right the ship of corporate-sponsored disinformation.
But it will be a lot of effort for potentially little return w/o a groundswell of cases/demands from those maligned. And individuals will need to do it, too. https://t.co/KnIK20WKw1
— Erin Geiger Smith (@erin_gs) December 14, 2020
There is also the question of whether Smartmatic would succeed in court. According to long-time media lawyer Ed Klaris, companies are subject to the same rules of defamation as individuals—including the need to clear the high bar of "actual malice" in the event they are so-called public figures.
Klaris says it's unclear if Smartmatic is so well-known that it would have to meet the actual malice standard. He also predicted that Fox would likely try to pass off the claims about the voting machines as opinion rather than statements of fact. While matters of opinion—including those thrown out in the hurly-burly of a talk show segment—are typically outside the realm of defamation, courts may find at least some of the "dozens" of allegedly false claims do not qualify as opinion.
Smartmatic's potential lawsuits could also serve to bring judicial scrutiny of some of the more outlandish claims—like plots by Venezuela to rig the election—advanced by the likes of Giuliani and Powell. While the pair has repeatedly advanced such claims in the media, they have not included claims of fraud in their numerous court challenges. Legal watchers say this is because, as attorneys, they can be sanctioned for making baseless claims before a judge.
Fox News did not respond to a request for comment about Smartmatic's allegations, nor did OANN. A spokesperson for Newsmax, which is positioning itself as a rival to Fox for Trump devotees, said it has never made direct allegations of impropriety about the company, but that its guests have commented on legal documents related to Smartmatic.
"As any major media outlet, we provide a forum for public concerns and discussion. In the past we have welcomed Smartmatic and its representatives to counter such claims they believe to be inaccurate and will continue to do so," said the spokesperson.
The distinction between a media outlet's positions and those of its guests may not always matter in court, however, according to Klaris. He notes that a victim of defamation is entitled to sue both the person who made the statement as well as the outlet on which the statement was aired.
Klaris also noted that, if Smartmatic has indeed lost out on contracts because of false claims about its voting machines, it will be in a strong position to seek damages.
"Absolutely, they’re suffering harm. That’s what libel law is meant to fix. It’s meant to fix reputational harm," said Klaris.