"Hey FCC - what about the lying on FOX?" Alter v FCC
- joealterinc
- Jan 11
- 3 min read
Updated: Mar 29

3/29/2025 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT submitted re: electioneering at Fox
Alter v FCC 1:24-cv-00745, Judge Amir H. Ali, District Court for DC
The full motion "V. CONCLUSION
Because intentionally libelous statements are not protected by the First
Amendment, this Court should grant summary judgment on the legal
issue that intentionally libelous speech is unprotected, and in this
context comprises conduct of electioneering which is impermissible
under the FCC’s public benefit mandate. Resolving this legal question
will streamline the trial and clarify the applicable standards moving
forward.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant this
Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that intentionally libelous
speech is not protected under the First Amendment as a matter of law
and is within the domain which the FCC must consider in its fitness
reviews of Fox’s licensing obligations, and that such a review does not
comprise “censorship” or a punishment for Fox’s exercise of “free
speech” as the FCC claims, but rather comprises form of fraudulent
manipulation of public opinion in the form of electioneering that is not
permissible under the FCC’s public benefit mandate for broadcasters,
and that the court has the right of review to see that these factors have
been adequately addressed by the FCC, and that there is, in fact,
sufficient evidence to support such a conclusion as to evaluating Fox’s
character as a broadcaster outside the meaning of the 1st Amendment
and freedom of speech, as it was not designed for the benefit of the
public, but a particular candidate, in a persistent pursuit of willfully
and fraudulently contesting an election result in the court of public
opinion, with reckless disregard for a fair and functioning democracy." 12/14/2024
I filed this complaint a while back, and in lieu of a reply brief, the FCC's Solicitor general posted a pre-motion preview of her case, which among other things cited sovereign immunity and standing, and other means of objection available directly at the agency.
The Judge issued an order asking if I'd like to reply, and this is where things got interesting.
I cite Loper Bright, to give my self all the above (standing, subject matter jurisdiction, and pierce sovereign immunity), to actively compel an agency to regulate, and the judge, rather than dismissing the whole case, as I assume the solicitor general was expecting, the judge set a briefing schedule.
In any case, Loper Bright is the recent SCOTUS decision that ended Chevron Deference and permits the court to be more involved in regulatory oversight (for the purpose of restraining regulators), and I argue that because of that decision, the courts can also become more involved in compelling regulation that the agency is not doing, if it be in the public interest.
I argue that the state (via the judiciary) has waived sovereign immunity where public interest intersects agency regulation, and that the courts may no take a more active roll in deciding whether they have fulfilled the role proscribed to them by congress, and are acting in the public interest. In this case we examine their lackluster response to FOX News's propaganda campaign, but if successful could also apply to lackluster agency responses to other crises such as climate change, water quality, environmental disaster cleanup, or FEMA disaster response (or lack therof). All of which could become vital avenues for checking the administration's attempt to politicize agency response in the coming years.
This could open up so many doors to oversight when agencies aren't regulating ENOUGH if the court accepts this argument, just the fact that they're going to entertain it, is kinda awesome. The case asks the court to revoke fox's licenses nationally until they can demonstrate to the fcc, and the fcc to the court, that they're not in the business of lying to us anymore (as per the $782M settlement with Dominion Voting systems court documents)
Comments