The settlement reached in Wilmington, Delaware, between an American voting equipment company and the Murdoch-owned Fox News television channel is a landmark development that ought to offer a template for libel actions around the democratic world.

Dominion, the voting equipment company, brought an action against Fox for outlandish claims made by the channel that the former was involved in a plot to steal the 2020 US Presidential election from Donald Trump. Fox News, which except for a brief period has blindly supported Mr Trump, had alleged repeatedly that Dominion had switched votes (in favour of President Joe Biden), and that it was founded in Venezuela to rig elections for Hugo Chavez. Dominion had sought $1.6 billion in damages, but settled out of court with Fox before the trial could begin for a little less than half that sum ~ a whopping $787.5 million (Rs 6,466 crore).

The proceedings ~ and the settlement reached by Fox’s lawyers ~ have several implications. Having coughed up nearly a third of its annual profit last year in damages, Fox will likely appreciate better the perils of partisan journalism, especially when its reports echo the lies that politicians of a particular persuasion tell. While its lawyers claimed the settlement represented Fox’s commitment to “the highest journalistic standards”, a more reasonable conclusion would be that they realized the very real possibility of having to pay the claimed amount at the end of six weeks, the period determined by the judge for the trial.

As Dominion’s lawyer said after the settlement, truth matters and lies have consequences. He added that for democracy to endure, it was necessary to share a commitment to facts. Other news outlets that have blindly parroted the claims made by Mr. Trump in his bid to re-enter the White House in 2024 will perhaps be a little more circumspect, and subject the former President’s utterances to the checks and rechecks that are an essential ingredient of journalism. The implication for democracies such as India is that a robust and speedy justice system that punishes those committing libel with a charge on their pocket book, rather than by prescribing jail terms for them, is more likely to force people, especially in public life, to control their tongues. While criminal defamation exists in the statute book of some states in the United States, civil actions seeking damages are the preferred route to seeking restitution, as indeed they should be. This is not the case in India where resolution of civil actions can take decades, forcing aggrieved persons to invoke the provisions of the penal code. Political personalities in India, who are wont to say things they cannot possibly substantiate, or those that are designed to cause damage to reputations, would think twice before holding forth if, for instance, they knew that a few months down the line the consequence could be a few crore rupees in damages, and not a jail term of a year or two. The same applies to news outlets that egregiously repeat these statements.