Fox News Lawyers Defend Tucker Carlson in Defamation Suit by Conceding Show Offers ‘Non-Literal’ Commentary

The federal judge who dismissed former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s defamation lawsuit against Fox News host Tucker Carlson claimed that, “Given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’.”

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil — who dismissed the lawsuit on Thursday — said, “The statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation.”

According to the New York Times:

In reaching her decision, Judge Vyskocil relied in part on an argument made by Fox News lawyers: that the “general tenor” of Mr. Carlson’s program signals to viewers that the host is “engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘nonliteral commentary.’” The judge added: “Given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’” about the host’s on-air comments.

McDougal filed her lawsuit against Carlson in 2019 over comments he made on her alleged affair with President Donald Trump and the alleged subsequent coverup.

“Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to

ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money,” the Fox News host said. “Now that sounds like a classic case of extortion. Yet for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn’t seem to make any sense.”

Fox News said in a statement:

Karen McDougal’s lawsuit attempted to silence spirited opinion commentary on matters of public concern. The court today held that the First Amendment plainly prohibits such efforts to stifle free speech. The decision is a victory not just for FOX News Media, but for all defenders of the First Amendment.

Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Fox News lawyers described Tucker Carlson’s commentary as errant. The post has been updated to correct that error.