Andrew Weissmann

And so one of the things that I learned when I started working for MSNOW is that there's something called a standards division.

And what standards does is it goes over

what it is that people say to make sure it is accurate and supported and not false, whether deliberately or not.

And there's a whole variety of reasons for that.

Some of it is because, of course, you want to be a good journalist.

But another is you don't want to get sued for defamation.

And so that's what standards looks at.

And this is something that responsible organizations of all stripes, not just liberal or conservative, responsible organizations do.

And no one says, well, wait a second, that's an improper chilling of the First Amendment.

It's viewed as part and parcel of responsible journalism, of a responsible fourth estate.

And so even in that area, the argument of a sort of chilling effect doesn't carry the day.

That is a great question.

I sort of make this point of an oddity in the law, which is if you are Rudy Giuliani and you say this is what Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss did, you've identified those people and they then have been hurt and they can bring a claim.

Or if you say Dominion Voting Systems engaged in fraud,

they have been hurt.

But if you just say in the sort of passive voice, there was fraud in the election, but you don't say it was dominion, even though all of us are the victims, the state of the law is that you need to have sort of individualized harm, even though we're all harmed.

So it is an oddity and a quirk.

And that is one of the reasons that the law could develop to

deal with this in a way, for instance, if it was a criminal law, then that is something that is a harm that can be vindicated by the state.

Sure.