The rule of disinformation
Nina Jankowicz sued Fox News and its parent company Fox Corporation for allegedly damaging her reputation as a specialist in conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns. The lawsuit was lodged in a Delaware state court exactly a year after she resigned as executive director of a new Department of Homeland Security unit combatting online disinformation.
The Disinformation Governance Board was abruptly shut down in the wake of a storm of virulent rightwing criticism, allegedly fueled by Fox News. Jankowicz and the new DHS division she led were attacked as being part of a conspiracy to censor rightwing comment spearheaded by Joe Biden.
Shutting down disinformation is translated to stifling politically incorrect opinion. We’ve been seeing that translation around here lately. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of disinformation.
Jankowicz resigned from the federal post on 18 May 2022, barely three weeks into the job.
In an interview with the Guardian, she said her motive in suing Fox was to ensure accountability for what she alleged was a campaign of lies against her that undermined American democracy. “There need to be consequences,” she said. “It was lies, very personal and very vitriolic lies. And I don’t think that is democratic.” She added that what she claimed was Fox’s reckless disregard for the truth had implications for the future of the country. “If we can’t agree on statements of fact, how can you live in a democracy?”
But of course Fox doesn’t see it that way.
Jankowicz was announced as the head of the new disinformation board on 27 April last year and was instantly engulfed in a tempest of rightwing anger. In the lawsuit, Jankowicz’s lawyers allege that the attacks skyrocketed the following day, after Fox News hosts began fuelling the hatred with unfounded claims about her desire to censor rightwing voices.
One of the most vociferous critics, the complaint says, was Tucker Carlson, the news channel’s then primetime star who was fired by Fox last month in the wake of the Dominion settlement. In his opening monologue on 28 April, Carlson called Jankowicz a “moron”, said that what she was doing amounted to a “full-scale attack on free speech” and dubbed the disinformation board “the new Soviet America”.
But of course Tucker Carlson specializes in disinformation; it’s what he does. He wants Freedom of Lying to be a right, and he’ll probably get what he wants.
“Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of disinformation.”
Thanks for encapsulating my thoughts on the subject.
One of my surgical mentors related this bit of history to me years ago: In 1953 he attended a national gathering of thoracic surgeons. He was among the vast majority of surgeons who were smoking in the conference hall. That meeting was where the first study linking smoking to lung cancer was presented. At the 1954 meeting, only a few still smoked and by 1955, none did. And yet, the tobacco lobby successfully fought against the data for several decades in pursuit of profit at the expense of the lives of others unschooled in disinformation.
Yeah they did. That was one chapter in Why Truth Matters. Jeremy wrote that one. Thanks for the reminder!
I haven’t read the complaint myself, but there was a discussion about it on this week’s episode of Serious Trouble (the Ken White and Josh Barro podcast). The impression I got was that there’s one or two statements that might be able to support a defamation claim, but the vast majority of what the plaintiff is complaining about is opinion, hyperbole, and insults. Apparently Delaware doesn’t have a useful anti-SLAPP law, so Fox probably can’t get it dismissed easily, but this isn’t exactly the Dominion/Symantec stuff.
The Guardian piece goes on to say Fox has moved to have the case relocated from the Delaware state court to a federal court.
Removing the case to federal court doesn’t change the substantive law, though. There is no federal anti-SLAPP law (there ought to be!); federal courts will apply the substantive aspects of any state anti-SLAPP (and if you’re wondering what counts as substantive vs. procedure, that’s all being hashed out across the country decision by decision), but that’s a moot point here.
It’s possible that Fox’s next move after removing to federal court will be to move to transfer the case to federal court in another jurisdiction, but that doesn’t necessarily affect the merits either.
Basically, jurisdiction, venue, and choice of law are technically separate issues, though there’s certainly some overlap in terms of the relevant factors.
“If we can’t agree on statements of fact, how can you live in a democracy”.
I was arguing with a friend about trans issues, and it was very apparent that she believes a different set of facts, i.e., high rates of suicide, lack of homophobia driving transition, respect for boundaries when it comes to sex partners, etc. I think this is the fundamental problem, and “no debate” prevents any discussion of the facts. Eventually what I said to her was that we didn’t agree on the facts, which made discussion impossible. She was also incredibly emotional, which also made it hard to have a discussion. I don’t know what it is about trans issues that just throws people into an emotional frenzy.
‘Shutting down disinformation is translated to stifling politically incorrect opinion.’
Yes, it is, and for cynical political reasons.