Key Points:
- Fox News Media is seeking to have an amended version of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s defamation lawsuit dismissed.
- The network claims the lawsuit is meant to chill free speech and expression, while Newsom claims he was defamed by a Fox News commentator this summer.
- Fox News warns it may be awarded attorney’s fees if Newsom’s lawsuit is dismissed on anti-SLAPP grounds.
Fox News Media is trying a second time to have California Governor Gavin Newsom’s defamation lawsuit against the news outlet dismissed, calling it a publicity stunt and warning the governor that he may owe the channel attorney’s fees if they are successful.
In a motion filed in Delaware court on Monday, Fox News called the defamation lawsuit brought by Newsom a “spectacle” and said Newsom is violating his own state’s laws by suing a company for exercising their freedom of speech.
In California, a statute known as “anti-SLAPP” allows individuals and organizations to seek the dismissal of a frivolous lawsuit that is meant to chill their free speech and expression rights. The law allows wrongfully-sued individuals and organizations to petition a court for attorney’s fees. Delaware has a similar anti-SLAPP statute.
Newsom first sued Fox News in June, after prime-time host Jesse Watters criticized some of his social media comments in the wake of civil unrest in Los Angeles over the summer. Watters took issue with Newsom claiming President Donald Trump didn’t call him before deploying the U.S. Marines to the city, something that Trump refuted by showing call logs.
“There was no call. Not even a voicemail,” Newsom wrote. “Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn’t even know who he’s talking to.”
Newsom says the post was written to correct a statement made by Trump during a news conference that the two had spoken a “day ago.” Trump provided Fox News call records that showed the two leaders had phone calls dating over a two-day period, but two days earlier.
On a technicality, Trump was wrong and Newsom was right. But Newsom’s social media statement gave the appearance that the two leaders had not spoken about the deployment of Marines at all, when it was quite possible that Newsom and Trump had discussed the matter during one of their two calls over two earlier days.
Watters, a conservative commentator with a popular weeknight Fox News program, questioned why Newsom would challenge Trump’s assertion of a warning, given the phone records.
“Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?” Watters asked while speaking over a graphic that said: “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call.”
Newsom sued the network for $787 million — nearly the same amount that the channel paid to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems two years ago. The specific dollar amount raised eyebrows over whether Newsom’s lawsuit was a legitimate attempt to judicially correct a case of defamation, or a publicity stunt amid rumors that he is prepared to launch his own presidential bid.
In a statement at the time Newsom originally filed the lawsuit, Fox News made it clear that it views Newsom’s lawsuit in the latter light, saying the case might end up causing him more harm than good.
“Gov. Newsom’s transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him,” a Fox News Media spokesperson said. “We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed.”
For his part, Newsom said he would voluntarily dismiss the case if Watters apologized for the remark. In July, Watters offered his own version of a mea culpa, admitting Newsom didn’t lie about the social media post, but saying the interpretation of his comments was “confusing and unclear.”
“Next time, Governor, why don’t you just say what you mean?” Watters asked.
Fox News Media is part of Fox Corporation.
—
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story said Fox News Media issued a statement about Newsom’s lawsuit on Monday. The original statement was made earlier this year; the network shared those remarks again on Monday in a note that included its new motion to dismiss.
—
Read more:
