[ad_1]
Since COVID-19 vaccines became available, public health authorities, respected health professionals, some employers and responsible politicians have all urged, coerced and bribed us to get vaccinated. With the emergence of the more infectious, virulent, and now dominant delta variant, skyrocketing positive rates have injected new urgency into these calls. Yet vaccination rates have slowed at a breakneck pace, and most of those who are not vaccinated say they have no plans to change their mind. Unless that changes, expect higher death rates, breakthrough infections, and potentially a return to the pandemic lockdown state we all hoped we had left behind.
There are a multitude of reasons that can be cited to explain the current reluctance towards vaccines, but a key factor is the prevalence of quack “experts” willing to misinterpret the data, lie about the statistics and simply make it up. things. Fox News, and in particular Tucker Carlson, has led the misinformation charge. Night after night, Carlson provided a platform to sow fear and confusion among his viewers about the vaccine’s effectiveness and its side effects. Although the network has recently sounded a more responsible note, this turnaround has no way was on the whole network and it is too late for countless people who are newly ill or have died from the disease, and who could have been saved by vaccination. However, there may be legal recourse for damage caused by the network. COVID victims who have been taken in by Carlson’s vaccination misinformation, or their estates, may be able to sue Fox News under the old common law fraud theory. They would also have a good chance of success.
Tort law allows anyone injured by the intentional wrongdoing of another to sue for bodily injury, property damage or economic loss caused by the illegal activity. The specific claim that relates to the damage caused by willful misrepresentation is fraud, and based on the misinformation someone ingested and how they reacted to it, it is easy to imagine that many viewers would be able to make a good complaint. What is needed to prove a fraud case is clearly established through centuries of court decisions.
First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false statement of fact, knowing it to be false or without recklessly caring about its truth or falsity. (“Reckless disregard” means the defendant did not conduct any investigation, but simply released the statements.) Examples of such inaccuracies on Fox are plentiful. Here are some clips (starting at around 50 seconds) where Carlson and Lara Trump, as guests on Sean Hannity’s show, say COVID is really about “social control” and where Carlson calls the COVID response ” scandal”. Here is Carlson wondering if the vaccine works, as those who are vaccinated are always urged to take precautions: “Maybe it doesn’t work, and they just don’t tell you. (This is not how vaccine effectiveness works. No vaccination is 100% effective, so there is always a small risk of infection, a small risk of disease, and an infinitely small risk of death. even among people who have been fully vaccinated.) Here is Carlson giving airtime to Alex Berenson, “The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man,” allowing him to spout more nonsense about the vaccine’s alleged ineffectiveness. Want more? Beyond Carlson, here are (from around 3:21 am) some Fox News figures distorting the Biden administration’s door-to-door effort to educate people and answer their questions about the vaccine. It’s the Taliban! It is a violation of medical confidentiality! It’s to force you to get vaccinated! (No, no, and no. Vaccine educators are drawn from the local community; they don’t even work for the government.) These purveyors of disinformation lie or act recklessly disregard the truth against falsity by not even making the point. most basic research to check what they spit. And it is also considered a false statement to state a half-truth, leaving out the vital information necessary to place a statement in context. This is exactly the case with Carlson’s false questioning of the vaccine’s effectiveness; he paints a deliberately incomplete picture.
To prevail over a fraud claim, the plaintiff must then show that the defendant intended the injured party to rely on the false statement (this can be inferred from the fact that Fox presents itself as an information provider) and that the plaintiff reasonably pleaded on the inaccuracy. Each potential complainant would have to allege, and then prove, that he relied on Fox and the “experts” to make the statements that prompted him to forgo the vaccination. It’s impossible to imagine that at least some of the sick and killed didn’t count on Carlson, his guests, and the rest of Fox’s informants, and it would be hard to hear Fox’s attorneys claim that no one should. “Reasonably” rely on what their new the station goes out. (Ironically, the network has made this argument successfully in court before, but in a case involving statements by Carlson that could reasonably be viewed as hyperbole. It’s a different story when it publishes information – some from so-called experts – who makes patently false claims in a case involving hard facts.)
The last requirement for a successful fraud claim is proof of economic loss, which would be pretty easy. Hospital bills not covered by insurance, loss of wages and even loss of income of the deceased, in the event of wrongful death, are a few examples.
But a final obstacle remains. While such a case looks solid when looking at the requirements of a fraud case, this situation does not look much like a traditional claim, which usually involves a direct loss. himself wanted by the fraudster. More common cases would include stock market fraud or selling someone a used car that the seller claims to be safe, but has a shoddy transmission that they were aware of. Yet even though the false claims in this case may not seem so designed to directly deprive viewers of money, it could be argued that Fox News intended to bolster its bottom line by responding to a particularly conspiratorial market by pushing its anti-garbage. -vaccine. . Even beyond the potential economic gain for Fox, however, at least some courts have been willing to extend fraud claims to situations where the defendant’s conduct violates strong public policy, even without demonstrable economic loss. In one tragic situation, for example, parents adopted a child for whom the agency had not disclosed his very disturbing story, which included abuse and the boy’s subsequent propensity to commit extreme violence. The couple were not only able to cancel the adoption, but also file a fraud complaint. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the importance of encouraging people to adopt children and was concerned that misconduct like this undermines that goal and frees bad actors from the duty to confidence they owe families in these emotionally charged circumstances. Other states have accepted this approach in adoption cases, citing the ability of the common law to evolve to meet new challenges. And if successful, the Pennsylvania court noted, the plaintiffs would be entitled not only to economic damages, but also to damages for their pain and suffering, and even for punitive damages, in order to deter such future faults.
Similar policy arguments apply here; if anything, they are even stronger. In our world of segmented media, Fox News watchers rely heavily on what they hear on the network. They confidence Fox to provide truthful information. One cannot imagine a greater violation of that trust than divulging misinformation designed to steer people away from life-saving vaccines. A Daily Mail article cited a doctor in Alabama – where vaccination rates are the lowest in the country – who works with the sick and dying, and young, COVID patients. Here’s a heartbreaking excerpt from his Facebook post: “One of the last things they do before they get intubated is beg me for the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them I’m sorry, but it’s too late. A few days later, when I call the time of death, I hug their family members and tell them that the best way to honor their loved one is to go get the shot and cheer everyone on. those they know to do the same. They are crying. And they tell me they didn’t know. They thought it was a hoax.
How many of these people relied on Fox News? Maybe we will find out one day in court.
[ad_2]
Source link