66
Comments (3)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
HocusLocus 2 points ago +2 / -0

You did a good job extracting the essence. When you are accused of libel/defamation the first thing out of the gate is your defense must prove to a judge or jury that

  • your motive was not personal profit but rather, pursuit of the truth
  • you honestly believed the libelous/defamatory statements to be true at the time you made them
  • only then and only if no settlement is offered, do actual facts come under scrutiny because (even if nothing else) the judge has to decide who to stick with the court costs.

This is about personal motive, not the (eventually) discovered truth. Even people who were later proved wrong have had lawsuits dismissed.

1
russianbot4673 1 point ago +1 / -0

the article is shit because it doesn't address the fact that she once claimed to welcome a suit from dominion because it would give her a chance to prove her accusations against them in court, and yet now, suddenly, for some reason, she's trying to get out her 'day in court' by filing to dismiss. and it also doesn't actually address the real key issue which is that in her filing to dismiss, to get out of what she once claimed to welcome, she uses a 'legal strategy' of insisting that only unreasonable people ever believed her.

just simply calling something a 'legal strategy' doesn't counter-act it being shitty. she's literally saying that only dumbasses ever believed her bullshit. and i agree.