Glenn Greenwald Tweets”

MSNBC’s lawyers argued – and a court agreed – that Maddow can’t be sued for defamation, even when she accuses an outlet of being “literally paid Russian propaganda,” because nobody takes her seriously. No liberal outlet will mention this even as they *constantly* say it about Fox

Follow the thread for details and yet another example about how there are two news teams out there. I think of them as two separate types of “News Filters.”

Greenwald comments that the left leaning media team constantly thrashes a comparable case with a comparable argument made on behalf of Tucker Carlson, but when it comes to Maddow’s own case, it’s crickets:

[T]hose most guilty of being unreliable liars and propagandists are those in the media and even Maddow’s own MSNBC colleagues who repeatedly cite this court ruling to delegitimize Carlson without ever mentioning that Maddow’s lawyers successfully used the same arguments in her defense.

Here is an excerpt from the Court’s Opinion adopting the arguments of Maddow’s own attorney and dismissing the case against Maddow:

Here, Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying “I mean, what?”) and calling the segment a “sparkly story” and one we must “take in stride.” For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context. The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts. In sum, when the total context surrounding Maddow’s comment is considered, the Court finds that the context weighs towards a finding that the statement constitutes opinion and rhetorical hyperbole protected under the First Amendment.

.    .    .

By protecting speakers whose statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as allegations of fact, courts “provide[ ] assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ or the ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (quoting Hustler Mag., Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53–55 (1988)). That is the case here.