Arizona Looking to Dump Metric Signage on I-19

[kphoger]

Just remember Fox News successfully argued in court that they are entertainment, not news, and no reasonable person should take anything they say seriously. (And for bonus points, this was specifically referring to Tucker Carlson).

Well, not Fox News in its entirety.  But yes, Tucker Carlson specifically.

Basically, their argument was that Tucker Carlson was a commentator rather than a journalist, and that Tucker Carlson Tonight was an opinion talk show rather than a news segment, so a reasonable viewer would not assume every assertion by Carlson was a statement of verifiable fact.

The context in which the offending statements were made here make it abundantly clear that Mr. Carlson was not accusing Ms. McDougal of actually committing a crime.  As a result, his statements are not actionable.  While Mr. Carlson used the word "extortion," Defendant submits that the use of that word or an accusation of extortion, absent more, is simply "loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language" that does not give rise to a defamation claim.  Def. Br. at 9.  The Court agrees.  See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21.  Mr. Carlson's statements were in response to contemporaneous suggestions that President Trump could be impeached due to campaign finance violations stemming from the payments to Ms. McDougal, an issue that attracted significant public and political concern and led to sustained debate across media platforms.  See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 49-50.  Mr. Carlson tied the potential of an impeachment inquiry into his discussion of the payments to Ms. McDougal.  See Episode Transcript.  When the statements are 11 read in context, it is apparent that Mr. Carlson is remarking on hypocrisy he perceives, i.e. that Mr. Cohen could be prosecuted, and the President impeached, for actions falling short of the conduct Ms. McDougal purportedly engaged in during the President's campaign.  In light of that, Mr. Carlson's statements are "a statement on matters of public concern" that deserve the highest protection.  Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 19; Flamm v. Am. Ass'n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2000).

[...]

In light of this precedent and the context of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," the Court finds that Mr. Carlson's invocation of "extortion" against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson's soliloquy.  As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to "challenge[] political correctness and media bias."  Def. Br. at 14.  This "general tenor" of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 12 "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary."  Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21; Levinsky's, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 128 (1st Cir. 1997)).  Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer "arrive[.s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism" about the statements he makes.  600 W. 115th Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130, 141, 603 N.E.2d 930, 936 (1992).  Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as "exaggeration," "non-literal commentary," or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.

This interpretation of the segment is bolstered by the disclaimer Mr. Carlson made at the outset of his monologue.  See Tr. at 8:2-19.  Specifically, he introduced the segment by stating: "We're going to start by stipulating that everything Michael Cohen has told the feds is absolutely true.  Now, assuming honesty isn't usually a wise idea with Michael Cohen, but for the sake of argument, let's do it in this case, everything he says is true[.]"See Episode Transcript (emphasis added).  Mr. Carlson, who is not a lawyer, see Def. Br. at 13 n.7, then goes on to state his opinion: "Now that sounds like a classic case of extortion."  See Episode Transcript (emphasis added).  These disclaimers would put any reasonable viewer on notice that Carlson himself "doubt[.s] the veracity of the source of these statements" and that the listener should as well.  Tr. at 8:17-18.  Mr. Carlson's statements, instead, seek to frame the issue for a debate that follows on the show, and do not come as a sober factual report.

[The Ghostbuster]

I always thought that the southernmost end of Interstate 19 was unusual. Having to utilize Compound St., N. Sonoita Ave., and W. Crawford St. to reach N. Grand Ave./Business 19 (old US 89/AZ 93/AZ 789) and the US/Mexican border. I think the Interstate 19 designation should have ended at the Compound St./N. West St. intersection, with To Interstate 19 and To Business 19 signs following the three streets to connect the two highways. Since the existing border crossing in Nogales is likely sufficient, there obviously wasn't a need to extend the Interstate 19 freeway into Mexico via another one.

[Quillz]

In a fictional world, 17 and 19 would be one long interstate. 

[Scott5114]

In a fictional world, 17 and 19 would be one long interstate.

In a different fictional world, they would be thirty to fifty short interstates.

[kkt]

In a fictional world, 17 and 19 would be one long interstate.

I don't see any reason they should be one route number.  There would be about 110 miles between them shared with I-10.  And what if  they someday want route 77 north of Tucson to be an interstate?

[Quillz]

In a fictional world, 17 and 19 would be one long interstate.

I don't see any reason they should be one route number.  There would be about 110 miles between them shared with I-10.  And what if  they someday want route 77 north of Tucson to be an interstate?

Interstate 21
Or Interstate 119

[kphoger]

In a fictional world, 17 and 19 would be one long interstate.

In a different fictional world, they would be thirty to fifty short interstates.

If you believe in the multiverse, both of these worlds actually exist...