I frequently appear as an unpaid guest on Fox and as a paid legal expert on Newsmax. In both instances I speak only for myself and not for the networks, as I also do in this column. I am also suing CNN for having doctored the tape of my appearance before the United States Senate so as to make it appear that I said the opposite of what I actually said. So I am not an unbiased observer with regard to these lawsuits.

With that said, as an advocate of maximum freedom of speech for more than sixty years, I fear for the First Amendment. The one-sided settlement made by Fox may, on balance, have served its interests. It certainly fattened Dominion’s bottom line but it was not good for the First Amendment and for the rights of Americans to hear the diversity of views on important subjects of public interest.

I believe that the 2020 election was essentially fair and produced the right result. Accordingly, I think that Fox presented the views of guests and commentators that were false. Newsmax was different. It reported a diversity of viewpoints, but without embracing allegations that turned out to be false. In my view Newsmax has a stronger case than Fox, both as a matter of facts and law. I don’t know whether Newsmax will litigate. I hope it does and I hope it wins.

[I don’t necessarily agree with Dershowitz, but he’s always a good read. He has a beef with the judge who ruled that Fox’s claims were false and defamatory before the trial began, and there may be merit to that complaint. However, Fox could have appealed those rulings on the basis that Dershowitz argues here, which is that those are issues that should have been left to the jury. Instead, Fox spent almost $800 million to get out of the trial. That would have paid for a lot of appeals. I suspect that Fox’s attorneys knew that argument was a loser. But YMMV, and Dersh is always worth reading, as I said. — Ed]