WILMINGTON, Del. A Delaware Supreme Court judge is expected to be sworn in by a jury this week in a defamation trial that has no precedent in American law. Fox News, one of the most powerful and profitable media companies, will defend itself against extensive evidence that it told its audience a 2020 election conspiracy and fraud story that it knew wasn’t true.

The jurors will be asked to weigh up the lofty questions about First Amendment restrictions and consider imposing a hefty financial penalty on Fox. Some of the most influential names in the conservative media are expected to be called to testify – Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson. But there is another fundamental question that this case raises: will there be a price to be paid to profit from the spread of disinformation?

Few people have been held legally accountable for their role in trying to delegitimize President Biden’s victory. Sydney Powell, a lawyer who was one of the biggest conspiracy theorists about Dominion Voting Systems, the company that filed a $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox, avoided being disbarred in Texas after a judge dismissed a complaint against her in February.

Jenna Ellis, a lawyer who worked with Ms. Powell and the Trump campaign, was reprimanded last month in lieu of having her license revoked by the Colorado Bar Association. Donald J. Trump, whose false claim that he was cheated in victory provoked a violent crowd on January 6, 2021, is running for president for the third time and remains the clear leader in the Republican nomination.

Judge Eric M. Davis, who is overseeing the case, said in a statement on Sunday that the trial will be adjourned by a day until Tuesday. He did not give a reason, but said he would make an announcement on Monday at 9 am.

Political disinformation has become so pervasive partly because the government can do little to stop it.

“Lying to American voters is not really actionable,” said Andrew Weismann, a former FBI general counsel who was a senior member of the Robert S. Mueller task force that studied the Trump campaign in 2016.

A quirk of American law is that most of the lies – even those that destabilize the nation and are told by people of great power and scope – cannot be prosecuted. Charges can only be filed in a limited number of circumstances, such as if a business executive lies to shareholders or an individual lies to the FBI. Politicians can be charged if they lie about campaign contributions, which is the crux of the criminal case against Mr. Trump. Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

In the case of Fox News, the lawsuit is ongoing because the law allows companies like Dominion and people to seek damages if they can prove that their reputation has been damaged by lying.

The legal barrier that a company like Dominion must comply with in order to prove defamation is known as malice. And this is extremely difficult to prove due to the decision of the Supreme Court in 1964 in the case The New York Times v. Sullivanwhich stated that public officials could only claim defamation if they could prove that the defendants either knew they were making a false statement or acted recklessly in choosing to publish the libelous statement.

“There are many cases where you can lie with impunity, but here is the real victim,” Mr. Weissmann added. “It was only because of intuition that they attacked the company.”

Typically, media lawyers and First Amendment scholars treat defamation defendants with great respect. They argue that the law should give the media a breathing space to make mistakes, even serious ones, as long as they are not intentional.

But many legal scholars have said they believe there is sufficient evidence to support the Dominion case, in which they claim they were intentionally affected by the lies broadcast by Fox and that they would not only be surprised, but disappointed if no matter the jury found Fox was liable for defamation.

“If this case goes wrong,” said John Culhane, professor of law at Widener University’s Delaware School of Law, “it’s clear from my point of view that it would be a terrible mistake, because this case is just as strong as the case you are about to get into.” for slander.” Mr. Culhane added that Fox’s victory would only make it harder to curb the misinformation that is rampant in the pro-Trump media.

“I think it would give them even more courage,” he said.

This case turned out to be extraordinary on many levels, not only because of its ability to reach a decision that has so far eluded prosecutors such as Mr. Weissmann, who have spent years prosecuting Mr. , bowed the American side. democratic system to the limit.

“Even if it doesn’t involve Donald Trump, Fox, and the uprising, this is a unique libel lawsuit, period,” said David Logan, a professor of law at the Roger Williams School of Law and an expert on defamation. “This has never happened before.”

It is extremely rare for defamation cases to reach a jury trial. Mr. Logan said his study shows a steady decline over the years, with an average of 27 per year in the 1980s and only three in 2017.

Some experts, such as Mr. Logan, believe the case’s significance could extend beyond its relevance to the current disinformation-infested political climate. They see an opportunity for the Supreme Court to eventually consider the case as a means to overhaul libel law and the “actual malice” standard. Judges haven’t done this since 1989. happening involving a losing candidate for municipal office in Ohio who successfully sued a newspaper after it published a false article about him the week before the election. The court stated that a public figure could not recover damages unless there was “clear and convincing evidence” of actual malice.

The actual standard of malice has been vital to individual journalists and media outlets who make mistakes—as long as they are honest mistakes. But some scholars, such as Mr. Logan, as well as two conservative Supreme Court justices, Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, have argued that “actual malice” should be reconsidered as too high a standard. Judge Thomas specifically cited “spreading lies” as the reason.

“The nature of that privilege is at the core of our democracy, especially in this case,” said Mr. Logan, whose article, alleging that the courts made it too difficult for victims of defamation to get help, was cited in a Justice Dissent. Gorsuch in 2021.

Fox’s lawyers are already preparing for an appeal, a sign they have no illusions that it will be easy to win the Dominion case. Fox was represented in several recent hearings before Judge Davis by Erin Murphy, an appellate attorney with experience in the Supreme Court.

The Dominion also appears to consider the possibility of an appeal to be very real. He had his own attorney of appeal, Rodney A. Small, acting on his behalf when Fox’s First Amendment defense issues came up last month – the kind of constitutional issues that federal appeals courts will hear.

The belief that the Supreme Court will eventually be able to hear the Fox-Dominion case is shared by Fox Corporation General Counsel Viet Din. Mr. Dean, who will likely be called by the Dominion as a witness during the trial, privately told colleagues he thought Fox’s chances in the Supreme Court would be good – definitely better than before a Delaware jury, according to people who know his thinking.

Evidence against Fox includes a massive amount of text messages and emails showing that producers, hosts and executives downplayed claims made on-air about hacked voting machines and a conspiracy, details that Dominion says prove the network slandered her.

But Fox’s lawyers and its public relations department say its broadcasts were protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution because they included the kind of coverage and commentary that the media are entitled to make at official events of great public interest.

“Free, vibrant American discourse depends on First Amendment protection for news gathering and press reporting,” a spokeswoman for the network said in a written statement. The statement added that Fox viewers expected comments that aired on the network after the election “just as they expect exaggeration, speculation and opinion from the commentary section of a newspaper.”

Judge Davis dismissed Fox on some of his First Amendment claims, limiting his ability to defend certain points in court, such as his claim that he does not endorse any of the president’s and his allies’ false claims, but merely repeats them as they were. news statements.

A Dominion spokeswoman expressed confidence, saying, “We will prove in the coming weeks that Fox is spreading lies, causing massive damage to the Dominion. We look forward to the trial.”

Inside Fox, from corporate offices in Los Angeles to the news channel’s headquarters in Manhattan, there is little optimism about the case. Several current and former employees have said privately that few people at the company would be surprised to see a jury rule against Fox.

Judge Davis expressed considerable skepticism about Fox in the courtroom. Last week, he sanctioned Fox when Dominion said the company had not disclosed details of Mr. Murdoch’s involvement in Fox News cases, ruling that Dominion had the right to testify further at Fox’s expense. In a letter to the judge on Friday, Fox said: “We understand the court’s concerns, we apologize and are committed to clear and full communication with the court going forward.”

But the last word is not for the judge. Twelve men and women from Delaware will eventually decide the case. And defamation suits so rarely prevail that it’s also prudent to consider the possibility of Fox actually winning – and what the 2024 election looks like with an emboldened pro-Trump media.

Shortly after misinformation plagued the 2016 election, journalists and content moderators struggled to turn Americans away from unreliable websites ahead of the 2020 vote.

The new study suggests that, to some extent, their efforts have been successful.

When Americans voted in 2020, far fewer of them visited websites containing false and misleading stories, compared with four years earlier, according to Stanford researchers. While the number of such sites has skyrocketed, the average number of visits among these people has declined, as has the time spent on each site.

The researchers found that post-2016 efforts to educate people about the risk of disinformation, including content labeling and media literacy training, most likely contributed to the decline. Their study was published Thursday in the journal Nature Human Behavior.

“I am optimistic that the majority of the population is becoming increasingly resilient to online misinformation,” said Jeff Hancock, founding director of the Stanford Social Media Lab and lead author of the report. “We are getting better and better at distinguishing really problematic, bad, harmful information from reliable or entertaining.”

However, researchers estimate that almost 68 million people in the United States checked websites that were not credible, visiting 1.5 billion times a month in 2020. This included domains that are now defined, such as theantimedia.com and obamawatcher.com. Some study participants visited some of these sites hundreds of times.

As the 2024 election approaches, researchers are concerned that disinformation is evolving and fragmenting. Beyond web browsers, many people come across conspiracy theories and extremism just by browsing mobile apps like TikTok. More dangerous content has moved to encrypted messaging apps with hard-to-trace private channels like Telegram or WhatsApp.

The boom in generative artificial intelligence, the technology behind the popular ChatGPT chatbot, has also raised concerns about misleading images and mass lies.

Stanford researchers said that even limited or concentrated exposure to disinformation can have serious consequences. Baseless allegations of electoral fraud sparked riots at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. After more than two years of congressional hearings, criminal trials and libel lawsuits are still considering what happened.

Stanford researchers tracked the online activity of 1,151 adults from October to 2018. 2 to 9 November 2020 and found that 26.2% visited at least one of 1,796 untrusted websites. They noted that the time frame did not include the post-election period, when baseless allegations of voter fraud were particularly vocal.

It’s been down from earlier, separate report this showed that 44.3 percent of adults visited at least one of the 490 problematic domains in 2016.

According to the researchers, attempts, including social networks, to mitigate misinformation could have influenced the reduction in the audience. They noted that 5.6% of visits to untrusted sites in 2020 were from Facebook, up from 15.1% in 2016. Email also played a smaller role in sending users to such sites in 2020.

Other researchers have identified more ways to limit the lure of disinformation, especially with regard to elections. The bipartisan political center proposed in the report This week, states are accepting direct-to-voter text messages and emails that offer verified information.

Social media companies also need to do more to discourage performative outrage and so-called groupthink on their platforms — behaviors that can reinforce extreme subcultures and increase polarization, said Yiny Zhang, associate professor of communications at the University at Buffalo.

Professor Zhang, who published studying this month about QAnon, said tech companies should instead encourage more moderate interaction, even renaming the “like” buttons to something like “respect.”

“What we can do for the average social media user is go back to tribal instincts, try to be more introspective and say, ‘I’m not going to take the bait. I’m not going to lash out at my opponent,” she said.

With next year’s presidential election approaching, the researchers said they are concerned about populations known to be vulnerable to disinformation, such as the elderly, conservatives and non-English speakers.

More than 37 percent of people over 65 visited disinformation sites in 2020, according to the Stanford report, much higher than younger groups but better than 56 percent in 2016. In 2020, 36 percent of people who supported President Donald Trump in the election visited at least one disinformation site, compared to nearly 18 percent of people who supported Joseph R. Biden Jr. Participants also completed a survey that included questions about their preferred candidate.

Mr. Hancock said disinformation should be taken seriously, but should not be exaggerated. The Stanford study, he said, showed that the news most Americans consume was not disinformation, but that certain groups of people were more likely to be targeted. Treating conspiracy theories and false narratives as an ever-present, wide-ranging threat can undermine the public’s trust in legitimate news sources, he said.

“I still think there is a problem, but I think it’s the problem we’re dealing with, and we also recognize that it doesn’t affect most people most of the time,” Mr. Hancock said. “If we teach our citizens to be skeptical of everything, then the credibility of everything that worries us is undermined.”