Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4722980" data-attributes="member: 63706">Even in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In a civil case the plaintiff has to make compelling enough claim to be able to file suit. Defamation requires a few criteria be met for a statement to be considered defamatory. You have to prove the statement was made by the plaintiff as a declaration of fact rather than a statement of opinion. You have to prove it hurt you. And you have to prove it was not true. If you can&#039;t do any one of those things, you have no standing, and there is no case. If you have evidence of all three, then it behooves the defendants to disprove any one of them, but truth is the ultimate defense. I haven&#039;t seen the allegations, but I&#039;d be willing to bet the lawyers would be able to prove that what they said wasn&#039;t declarative, but rather speculative, which is the difference of stating something as a fact vs as an opinion. Opinion would be considered protected speech in most cases. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson had defamation suits against them thrown out by proving they were speaking hyperbolically and sarcastically with the clear intent of the statements not being taken literally. Even though Maddow used the words &quot;literally&quot; and &quot;actually&quot; in her statement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4722980, member: 63706"] Even in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In a civil case the plaintiff has to make compelling enough claim to be able to file suit. Defamation requires a few criteria be met for a statement to be considered defamatory. You have to prove the statement was made by the plaintiff as a declaration of fact rather than a statement of opinion. You have to prove it hurt you. And you have to prove it was not true. If you can't do any one of those things, you have no standing, and there is no case. If you have evidence of all three, then it behooves the defendants to disprove any one of them, but truth is the ultimate defense. I haven't seen the allegations, but I'd be willing to bet the lawyers would be able to prove that what they said wasn't declarative, but rather speculative, which is the difference of stating something as a fact vs as an opinion. Opinion would be considered protected speech in most cases. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson had defamation suits against them thrown out by proving they were speaking hyperbolically and sarcastically with the clear intent of the statements not being taken literally. Even though Maddow used the words "literally" and "actually" in her statement. [/QUOTE]

Verification