Washington – The legal struggle between Newsmax and voting technology firm Smartmatic intensified this week as a Delaware judge ruled that a major defamation lawsuit against the right-wing network will go to trial. The decision by Superior Court Judge Eric Davis dealt a blow to Newsmax, which had sought to dismiss the case, and sets the stage for an exhaustive examination of the network’s coverage of the 2020 presidential election.
The case, now set to begin trial on September 30, centers on whether Newsmax knowingly promoted false claims that Smartmatic was involved in manipulating the outcome of the 2020 election. This ruling marks a critical juncture in the long-running legal battle between media outlets and technology companies like Smartmatic, which have become embroiled in the political fallout from the last election.
Smartmatic’s Case Against Newsmax Smartmatic’s legal team asserts that Newsmax recklessly disregarded the truth when it aired claims that its voting machines were part of a conspiracy to rig the election against former President Donald Trump. The company alleges that Newsmax, in an effort to cater to a pro-Trump audience, allowed these falsehoods to be broadcast without conducting proper fact-checking or presenting balanced perspectives.
In a statement, Smartmatic’s attorney Erik Connolly argued, “Newsmax must be held accountable to the fullest extent under law. We look forward to going to trial and presenting our case.” Connolly emphasized that Newsmax’s persistence in airing the false claims—despite knowing they were unsubstantiated—warrants legal recourse.
The outcome of this trial could have significant consequences, not only for Newsmax but also for media outlets in general, particularly as it pertains to their responsibility in verifying the accuracy of their reports.
The Defense: First Amendment Protections For its part, Newsmax maintains that its actions were protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press. The network argues that it was merely reporting on attempts to contest the election results, as the legal disputes over the 2020 election were newsworthy events of immense public interest. Judge Davis’s ruling, however, suggests that this defense may not shield Newsmax entirely from liability, as the jury will have to determine whether the network acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The judge did allow Newsmax to present a key defense, asserting that it did not endorse the false claims, but instead neutrally reported on Trump’s election challenges. This will be a central argument when the case is presented in court, but the outcome remains uncertain.
High Stakes for Newsmax With the trial set to begin later this month, the stakes are incredibly high for Newsmax. If a jury finds that the network defamed Smartmatic, it could be forced to pay substantial damages and could suffer lasting reputational harm. Moreover, the trial may force prominent figures at Newsmax to testify publicly about their involvement in shaping the network’s editorial coverage during the post-election period, potentially revealing internal discussions and motives.
Newsmax, however, contends that it has already taken steps to correct the record. In December 2020, the network issued a clarification, stating that it had found no evidence that Smartmatic or Dominion Voting Systems, another voting technology company, had manipulated votes in the 2020 election.
Broader Implications This trial comes at a sensitive time for both Newsmax and the media landscape as a whole. As the 2024 election approaches, the outcome of this case could have wide-ranging effects on how news organizations approach controversial political coverage. If Newsmax is found liable, it may prompt media outlets to adopt more stringent standards for fact-checking and editorial integrity. Additionally, the case could have a chilling effect on free speech debates, as some argue that holding news organizations liable for defamation could curb their ability to report on contentious political issues. Nonetheless, the importance of truth in journalism remains at the forefront of this legal battle.