She writes, in very correct legal terms, that the words are not actionable because no reasonable person (reasonable has a legal definition here, not a colloquial one) would believe that these were statements of fact. Rather, that they were claims to be tested through the courts. Thus they can not be considered defamatory.
Of course, the MSM, just like they did Trump's Georgia phone call, take certain phrases out of context, knowing that the lazy leftists reading their trash aren't going to make the effort to call them out on their bullshit.
Thank you. I read that these were her opinions and protected under the 1A...So the phrasing “no reasonable person” would conclude these as factual statements implies reasonable people would conclude these as her opinions...and therefore not subject to defamation.
Try actually reading Sydney's statement for one.
She writes, in very correct legal terms, that the words are not actionable because no reasonable person (reasonable has a legal definition here, not a colloquial one) would believe that these were statements of fact. Rather, that they were claims to be tested through the courts. Thus they can not be considered defamatory.
Of course, the MSM, just like they did Trump's Georgia phone call, take certain phrases out of context, knowing that the lazy leftists reading their trash aren't going to make the effort to call them out on their bullshit.
Damn, beat me to it! :D
Thank you. I read that these were her opinions and protected under the 1A...So the phrasing “no reasonable person” would conclude these as factual statements implies reasonable people would conclude these as her opinions...and therefore not subject to defamation.