Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
from the opinion,-facts-still-protected-speech-because-duh dept
One America News (OAN) -- a "news" network apparently more "fair and balanced" than the extremely right-leaning Fox News -- sued MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow for (factually) insinuating one of OAN's reporters had a side gig working for the Russian government. The OAN reporter, Kristian Rouz, also worked for Sputnik, the government-controlled Russian news outlet.
This report by Maddow came with the usual Maddow commentary, which included (protected!) opinions and the statement that Rouz was "literally paid Russian propaganda." This referred to Rouz's Sputnik work and cast serious shade on OAN's decision to bring the reporter on board with its network. A defamation lawsuit followed. And OAN lost.
The district court said the assertions were based on fact and everything else was protected opinion. The court signed off on MSNBC's anti-SLAPP motion, handing it a win. And with a the anti-SLAPP win came some fee-shifting, which led to OAN being ordered to pay more than $250,000 in legal fees.
OAN appealed. And it has lost again. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says the lower court was right about everything. The Appeals Court [PDF] says California's anti-SLAPP law can be applied here, seeing as it closely aligns with federal options for dismissals and motions to strike. Having determined that, it makes quick work of OAN's appeal.
It is undisputed that Maddow’s challenged speech was an act in furtherance of her right to free speech. Therefore, the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis is satisfied.
Undisputed.
And yet, OAN wants to dispute. Too bad, says the Ninth Circuit. There's no defamation here, something OAN seemingly conceded in its original complaint.
We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the broad context of Maddow’s show makes it more likely that her audiences will “expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.” Herring Networks, 445 F. Supp. 3d at 1050. It seems Herring agrees with this conclusion as well: Herring’s complaint characterizes Maddow as “a liberal television host,” and MSNBC’s cable programming as “liberal politics.” Although MSNBC produces news, Maddow’s show in particular is more than just stating the news—Maddow “is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers.” Id. at 1049. In turn, Maddow’s audience anticipates her effort “to persuade others to [her] position[] by use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole.” Info. Control Corp. v. Genesis One Comput. Corp., 611 F.2d 781, 784 (9th Cir. 1980) (citation omitted). Therefore, the medium through which the contested statement was made supports Maddow’s argument that a reasonable viewer would not conclude the statement implies an assertion of fact.
It's all opinion, as OAN noted in its own complaint. And yet, it sued, claiming this opinionated host was slinging facts. The disputed facts can't even be disputed because the OAN reporter actually worked for a Russian government-funded news agency. That Maddow was undeniably pleased to be reporting and commenting on OAN's self-inflicted PR black eye makes no difference. If anything, it adds to Maddow's defense.
Maddow’s gleeful astonishment with The Daily Beast’s breaking news is apparent throughout the entire segment. Thus, at no point would a reasonable viewer understand Maddow to be breaking new news. The story of a Kremlin staffer on OAN’s payroll is the only objective fact Maddow shares.
And the court hands down this implicit reminder: when commenting on people likely to be litigious, show your work:
Maddow’s dialogue before and after the contested statement is solely a reiteration of the material in The Daily Beast article. At no point before the contested statement does Maddow “imply the existence of additional, undisclosed facts.” Instead, Maddow reports the undisputed facts and then transitions into providing “colorfully expressed” commentary.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit says even the procedural things OAN wanted to argue about (again) are mainly the network's own fault.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because Herring never asked to amend, and if it had, amendment would have been futile. Moreover, contrary to Herring’s briefing, the district court’s rejection of Herring’s evidence, given the applicable Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, is not inconsistent with its conclusion that such evidence would not make a difference. Evidence can be both improperly proffered and unhelpful.
And that ends this case unless OAN thinks the Supreme Court is going to be more receptive to its arguments. Those arguments are, basically, opinion OAN doesn't like shouldn't be protected speech, and people shouldn't be allowed to report on undisputed facts that make OAN look bad. Hardly the sort of thing that's likely to upset Supreme Court precedent and long-held First Amendment protections for both opinions and factual statements.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, california, defamation, free speech, kristian rouz, opinion, rachel maddow
Companies: msnbc, oan, sputnik
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Isn't OAN the pro-nazi network that "hints" that certain ethnic groups should be gassed in camps? or am I thinking of a different news network?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The LA Times says...
The LA Times doesn't go quite that far...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't seem to be that far from it if that article is even remotely accurate, calling for the executions(read: murder) of those that 'stole' the election and then backtracking and pretending that they'd never say something like that and they were just musing on the legality of such an act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No sourced material, no proof your statements are accurate or true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NO, you're mistaken. President Biden's network is the pro-nazi network. Didn't you know he's endorsed Nazi's for decades?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're not very good at this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed; must be from this reality]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suing for hurt feels shoudl always have a cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a SLAPP dismissal almost always has a cost...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a Matter of Law Now
To dismiss with prejudice means that there is no fact pattern in which this could ever be considered a statement of fact. That basically means that nothing Rachell Maddow ever say can possibly be taken by a reasonable person as a statement of fact.
Oh well at least now its a matter of law that Rachel Maddow can never be taken as true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
Nope, it means there is no set of allegations which will turn Rachel Maddow's isolated hyperbolic LOLZ about a true 3rd party news story into more than 1st Amendment-protected opinion about the story into a defamation claim by the subject of the story. Or as the District Court wrote: “Because there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow’s statement, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
Given a news story which sussed out the uncontested facts that one OANN story source is also a paid contributor of a state-sponsored mouthpiece of Russia who also injected Russia-originated misinformation into OANN stories, Maddow sandwiched the statement: “in this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” OANN didn't object to even the whole sentence or the sentence that came after: “Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.” They only objected to the bolded part. But 1) “in this case” incorporated by reference the uncontested facts of the immediately presented news story, and 2) “literally” doesn't have a single meaning and cannot convert a hyperbolic opinion supported by disclosed facts into a statement of fact.
A better summary would be arguments that “opinion [plaintiff] doesn't like shouldn't be protected speech, and people shouldn't be allowed to report on undisputed facts that make [plaintiff] look bad” cannot result in a judgment of defamation because of the 1st Amendment and should result in penalties in jurisdictions with a healthy Anti-SLAPP statute.
That is not what it says. It says reasonable people listen to Maddow in context because “Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news.”
Maybe, if you don't understand the phrase “reasonable people” in the way a American court does, you are not a reasonable American. May I point you at the Constitution of the United States as Annotated by the US Congress to help understand reasonable Americans better. Or if that is too long, you may simply want to read the District Court Opinion and the Circuit Court Opinion which provide the facts and reasoning with references.
[Citation Required.]
Indeed the Dirstrict Court wrote: “Maddow immediately qualified the allegedly defamatory statement with a factual clarification and viewers were seeing accurate information regarding OAN on the screen while listening to Maddow.” So Maddow's story in the whole was chock-full of truth. Truths that made Maddow gleeful and OANN sad.
The Circuit Court ruling affirmed that OANN had no good reason to bring MSNBC and Maddow into court over their delicate snowflake-like hurt feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additional Sources
Daily Beast's original story on OANN as it appeared in court filing to take judicial notice of the news story referred to in the OANN complaint.
The story today is behind a paywall.
Maddow's Segment (3m34s) is still online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
That's a lot to write for a simple concept. Rachel Maddow the Stanford and Oxford genius doesn't know how to correctly use the term word "literally."
“Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news.”
That is all you needed to say. The court is saying that there is no circumstance when Maddow can every be taken as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You lack reading comprehension.
Allow me to de-wordify that other comment for you, then.
The court dismissed OAN’s lawsuit with prejudice because the suit lacked merit. Anything Maddow said that was a statement of objective fact wasn’t contested by OAN. Anything she said that was a statement of subjective (and hyperbolic) opinion was also protected speech. OAN couldn’t prove her opinion was defamatory—and wouldn’t have done it regardless of how many times it might’ve tried, hence the “with prejudice” dismissal.
The court said Maddow provides both news and opinion on her show—which is the truth. It would’ve explicitly made the claim you say it did—at any point in the ruling—if it had intended to make that claim. Your reading of the ruling is wholly incorrect and likely informed by an ignorance you refuse to admit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
Defemation is about false statements of fact. The ruling says that no statements of fact are disputed, that only the opinion is in contest, and opinion based on disclosed facts is not defamitory. Maddow can absolutely be held accountable for false statements of fact. Nowhere does the court say otherwise. The court has said that no false statements of facts were made, as supported by OAN's statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Dictionary Law Now
lit·er·al·ly | \ ˈli-tə-rə-lē
, ˈli-trə-lē, ˈli-tər-lē \
Definition of literally
2 : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
You're the idiot who doesn't know the difference between a public house and public housing.
Also, you seem to think that trespassing laws do not exist.
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
Source:
Chozen's illiteracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
No you are the illiterate one. Dismissing with prejudice is actually something that is very rare. It means that the plaintiff cannot amend the complaint should new evidence arise.
If you carefully read the decision it is not specific to this event. Even if an e-mail came up where Maddow admits the claim is false. That alone would not be enough fact to support the claim.
The court is saying that nothing Rachel Maddow ever says can be taken as a statement of fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please show me the exact direct quotes from the ruling that explicitly say what you claim the ruling says. Please note that the quotes must be explicitly clear about what they’re saying; they must have no other reasonable interpretation(s) besides “nothing Rachel Maddow ever says can be taken as a statement of fact”.
I’ll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the broad context of Maddow’s show makes it more likely thather audiences will “expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.”"
Nothing she ever says can be taken as fact. I'm happy its a matter of law now.
I agree with the court that opinion shows are opinion. My problem has always been with people like you who proport that opinion shows are fact, at least the ones you agree with, and how hard news and "fact checkers" have hid behind the protection of opinion when sued for defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That doesn’t mean what you think it does. It means that the courts concluded that Maddow viewers expect her to use “subjective language” that expresses her specific opinions. None of that says she is a liar, or that she doesn’t present facts, or—as you claim—that the courts believe “nothing she ever says can be taken as fact”.
Your attempt to prove your point has failed. Learn to read court rulings in a way that doesn’t fellate your biases.
Opinions can be (and often are) based on facts. The courts haven’t said otherwise. And OAN didn’t even challenge the actual factual statement upon which her opinion was built. OAN only challenged the opinionated statements—and the courts ruled that those opinions are protected speech. It never said “nobody can believe Rachel Maddow when she presents an actual fact”; if you could cite any part of the ruling that explicitly does say that, you’d have done so by now.
Rachel Maddow’s show is absolutely an opinion show. But when she makes factual statements, those aren’t opinions. And as I said, OAN didn’t challenge her on the factual statement she made—only on the (legally protected) opinion she expressed.
A claim of defamation has—and should have—a large hill to climb. “Hard news” outlets and “fact checkers” would disappear if it were easy to sue such entities for defamation. Don’t hate the players; hate the game you can’t win without effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That Why
""fact checkers” would disappear if it were easy to sue such entities for defamation. "
That is why for decades news organizations resisted the push for their papers to do "fact checking." If you get a "fact check" wrong its libel because a "fact check" is clearly a statement of fact.
Hence the shell game that gets set up by the likes the Tampa Bay Times set up with politifact to avoid liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All news outlets do some form of fact checking—sometimes it’s under the name of “fact checking”, and sometimes it’s that thing called journalism. Hell, fact checking is Journalism 101: If someone says it’s raining and someone else says it’s sunny, your job isn’t to report both sides—your job is to look out the window.
A “fact check” could be defamatory, but only if it’s a clear lie told knowingly and with malice. Otherwise, it’s protected speech, no matter how much your sorry SovCit ass wants to believe otherwise. Go to a lawyer who knows what they’re talking about and won’t fellate your biases, and they’ll tell you pretty much what I told you—albeit with more legalese.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That Why
"That is why for decades news organizations resisted the push for their papers to do "fact checking."
You do of course realize that for a century or more newspapers have had a corrections column. Not to mention that at it's most basic a reporter is a fact checker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To paraphrase a great movie line.
"You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
Dismissing with prejudice is actually something that is very rare.
This is false. Laughably false. Stop cosplaying as a lawyer.
The court is saying that nothing Rachel Maddow ever says can be taken as a statement of fact.
This is false. Laughably false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
"Dismissing with prejudice is actually something that is very rare."
I think you are confusing dismissal with prejudice following a settlement with dismissal, or procedural violations such as missing a filing deadline with prejudice in general. Yes if you include all the dismissals with prejudice following a settlement, procedural violations etc. its a large number but when you exclude those its far more rare at last I saw about 30%. In general if a case gets to that point the court will give leave to amend.
When you boil down what the court wrote in order to dismiss with prejudice is that if Rachel Maddow said it, it cannot be taken as factual.
I dont disagree with this. I believe that this should be the law of all opinion shows. I simply don't agree that Alex Jones should be held to a higher standard than Rachel Maddow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
I think you are confusing dismissal with prejudice following a settlement with dismissal
I am not. I write about these cases as part of my job. Dismissal with prejudice happens all the time. And I'm not talking about after a settlement.
When you boil down what the court wrote in order to dismiss with prejudice is that if Rachel Maddow said it, it cannot be taken as factual.
That is not even remotely close to what the judge said, nor the 9th circuit in affirming it. You are either too fucking stupid, or willfully misreading the ruling, which is a very standard defamation dismissal.
I dont disagree with this. I believe that this should be the law of all opinion shows. I simply don't agree that Alex Jones should be held to a higher standard than Rachel Maddow.
You are completely misrepresenting this. I'm just trying to figure out if you're a fucking fool, or deliberately misrepresenting stuff because you're a trollish asshole. I'm leaning towards the latter, but it's possible it's the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can’t it be both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
I think you are a biased actor as illustrated by how your bias has effectively killed your career. The 9th circuit is trying their best to tip toe around the issue but the obvious inference in their decision is that anything said on the show is opinion and cannot be libel. I agree with this and I'm glad the court agrees that nothing said on Maddow or any other opinion show can be taken as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The court said Maddow is expected to express her opinions, not that everything she says is an opinion. But please point to the part of the ruling that clearly and explicitly says what you claim it says…if you can.
Otherwise: Go have your biases massaged elsewhere. I’m sure Parler would love to have you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The court said Maddow is expected to express her opinions, not that everything she says is an opinion."
Its in the nature of what dismissal with prejudice means. 'There are no set of facts that could possible support the claim.'
Which is exactly what the original judge said
"there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow's statement,''
This is in the context of the show as a whole not just the segment. Even if you had an e-mail where Maddow admits the statement is deliberately false and made with malice it would still not be actionable because at its core Maddow is an opinion show and no reasonable person would take anything on an opinion show as a statement of fact.
And BTW I agree with this. No reasonable person should ever take anything said on an opinion show as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You really don’t fucking get it, do you.
OAN couldn’t prove any of the opinionated statements made by Maddow rose to the level of defamation. Even if it had another chance, it couldn’t do that. The court didn’t rule on the statements of fact upon which her opinions were built because OAN didn’t even contest those statements.
The court never said anything in legalese that amounts to “Rachel Maddow’s show is complete bullshit”. The court never ruled that her show was “unbelievable”. The court never made any statement that claimed Maddow is a liar or that any statement of fact made on her show is only an opinion.
A fact is a fact regardless of whether you believe it. OAN’s reporter having worked for Sputnik is a fact—one that OAN didn’t contest, which I must (again) remind you. If Rachel Maddow believes that said reporter was/is a propagandist for the Russian government based on that fact, she is legally allowed to share that opinion. The court ruled as much, to OAN’s dismay.
If you could prove that what you think the court said about Maddow’s opinions (or her show) is what it actually said, you would’ve done so by now. That you haven’t—that reasonable people armed with more knowledge than you have proven your opinion is based on faulty reasoning—isn’t my problem. I’m not going to fix it for you, and you’re not going to ever be able to fix it. Or, to put this in legal terms…
Plaintiff argues that the courts have ruled that Rachel Maddow literally can’t be believed in any context. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition. They can offer no such facts in the future. The Complaint is summarily dismissed with prejudice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Chozen wrote:
But that's not what the judge said since we have this:
(Doc 30, pp. 11-12, citations omitted, emphasis added)
So what did the the District Court judge say about dismissal with prejudice?
First of all, lawyers need to get their case in order before they sue or they can face sanctions (but that is a different TechDirt story.) Second, while local rules may vary, Plaintiffs have a right to amend their complaint once provided it is within 21 days of service and thereafter only by permission. (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15.) OANN completed service on 2019-09-20 (Doc 10) so by the time Maddow's lawyers filed the Anti-SLAPP motion OANN's freedom to amend expired and could only do by leave of the defendants (unlikely!) or the court.
The district court analyzed the disputed statement and its context following the precedent of Cochran v. NYP Holdings, Inc. and Standing Comm. On Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman and distinguishing it from the pattern of facts in Unelko Corp. v. Rooney to determine:
(Doc 30, pp. 16-17)
So Maddow both faithfully presents the factual news and inserts her own opinion and hyperbole and the judge says a reasonable person could tell the difference due to the context. The case was dismissed with prejudice because you can't change established facts by alleging more facts. What OANN needed to do was present less facts about the context so that the fraction of a sentence that they complained about would have to stand on its own. This they cannot do, by controlling precedent.
Masnick wrote:
Chosen wrote:
Again the District Court clearly said: “There is no dispute that Maddow ... accurately presented the article’s information.” Accurate information is facts. So what did the 9th Circuit say?
So clearly, the circuit court finds Maddow report facts and opinion and that reasonable people know which is which from the context.
Finally, on the dismissal with prejudice, the Circuit Court wrote:
(p. 23)
Stone wrote:
Chozen wrote:
Not a true quote, see below.
Because you can't change the facts that determined the outcome of the case by adding more facts which necessarily are tangential at best or irrelevant. (You can't escape being caught with your hand in the cookie jar by pointing out that Billy's Mom buys him Oreos all the time.)
Chozen wrote:
The district court did write “... there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow’s statement” (Doc 30, p.17) but you ignored the preceding reasoning based on precedent from Partington v. Bugliosi and Underwager v. Channel 9 Austl (Doc 30, pp. 7, 9-10) which is a controlling argument that additional facts would not budge.
Chozen wrote:
Incorrect. The context was analyzed at multiple levels, including what was on screen at the exact time the contested statement was made. The District Court even includes a screen capture on page 14 because both the general and specific context matter.
Chozen wrote:
Incorrect. Setting aside that Maddow is clearly reacting to the Daily Beast uncontested news story, such a hypothetical letter would be irrelevant to the reasoning in the case because
(Doc 30, p. 7, quoting Gardner v. Martino)
It's not like OANN was caught unaware, the argument MSNBC used closely paralleled that in their letter (attached to the complaint) which rejected OANN's demand for a retraction.
Which means you must 1) be reasonable and 2) study each contested statement according to the law. You have attempted neither. For example, you never considered Unelko Corp. v. Rooney where an opinion column writer statement was not considered protected opinion and Rooney had to rely on it being substantially true. (“his evaluation of Rain-X was capable of being understood as an assertion that the product failed to meet certain objective indicia of effectiveness.” at *1055)
Chozen wrote:
Reasonable people use a variety of mechanisms to evaluate what they hear and read. That's why both general and specific context as well as the details of the statement are important to consider. Even fictional television shows can support claims to defamation. but the particular facts about this one statement on Maddow's show do not, because of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
I think you are a biased actor as illustrated by how your bias has effectively killed your career.
My career has been killed? When? How?
The 9th circuit is trying their best to tip toe around the issue but the obvious inference in their decision is that anything said on the show is opinion and cannot be libel.
That is not, at all, what the 9th circuit is saying. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I agree with this and I'm glad the court agrees that nothing said on Maddow or any other opinion show can be taken as fact.
That is not at all what the court said.
I'll note you didn't respond to the other points I actually raised, which leads me to conclude that you're just a troll. What a pathetic piece of shit you are. When you grow up one day, maybe you'll regret your wasted life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
My career has been killed? When? How?
A quick look at your bio shows that your career has effectively stalled. You had a great future in the 00s into the mid 10s. But somewhere around 2016 your career stalled. Can't imagine what could have happened in 2016 to cause you to lose your mind and cut off your nose to spite your face. A look through your history shows that you ran off most of your best commentators and basically anyone who disagreed with your world view. Your blog comments became an echo chamber of basically the same 4 losers with anyone who disagreed having their posts flagged and their IPs restricted. Since 2016 you aren't known for a single significant intellectual contribution.
Your bias has killed your career. Now you are left running around screaming 'I invented the keyboard neck tie!' Your 15 minutes was up an hour ago.
Now your blog could be good again. You blog does tackle very significant subjects. But the way you chose to run it has ruined you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
And here you are, getting your ass handed to you by four losers.
Pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Projection, thy name is Chozen.
Mike doesn’t and shouldn’t run Techdirt in a way fellate your biases. He doesn’t and shouldn’t run it in a way that fellates mine, either. You want a “better” Techdirt? Literally copy his blog’s contents to a whole other site and run the comments the way you want them run. Until then, you shall continue to be flagged and mocked and metaphorically torn to shreds and you will keep coming back for more. (How do I know that? Because you literally can’t resist it, you sadistic bridge troll.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
I'm not sure either, because whatever you claim had that much of a significant effect doesn't apply to all the content on this site. I mean, I get why you'd imagine this is such a dog whistle, but Techdirt reports on dumb shit all the time because they're committed by leaders of corporations and governments with their heads up their fucking asses. On the threads where the previous administration's idiocy gets featured, apologists like you spam those threads to high heaven like anything that mentions Devin Nunes, because suggesting that those knuckledraggers might have messed up rustles your jimmies harder than a magnitude 11 earthquake.
It sounds like you've been closely monitoring these "best" commentators. Your admission of stalking aside, you wouldn't happen to be able to name some?
"Echo chamber" is not the "I win" button you keep thinking it is. Never mind that there's That One Guy, That Anonymous Coward, Stephen T. Stone, Samuel Abram, Thad, bhull42, Leigh Beadon, OGquaker, ECA, etc more than 4 "losers" regularly here, but it's not as though anyone expected you to be good at basic arithmetic.
You haven't been paying attention to the Prenda Law, Malibu Media and Richard Liebowitz coverage, then. Among other things, but copyright lawyers finally getting punished for being douchebags is a huge highlight. You not noticing these is hardly the fault of Masnick or the site.
Why do you guys keep thinking that bitching about how a site you hate is run is going to solve anything? You're not going to inspire legions of people to start kissing your feet. You're not going to influence any change you find meaningful or agreeable. Why do you think that declaring "this site could be great again if only it did things I like and the way I want it" is an effective strategy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have the hubris to believe prayer can change reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
Since 2016 you aren't known for a single significant intellectual contribution.
Counterpoint:
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1204766087281172480
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
WHAT IS YOUR CAREER, MAZ?
State it succinctly.
All I've seen is 20 years of trying to do away with copyright and patents, shilling for Google / Facebook, and of late, advocating that corporations, mere legal fictions granted permission to operate by The Public, are now to control all speech on "platforms"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
What's your career, blue? Cary Sherman's lapdog? Mitch Bainwol's fluffer? Shiva Ayyadurai's Fran Drescher maskbearer #27?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
[hallucimates facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, Blue Spheres: How do you square your opposition to corporate censorship with your approval of corporate use of the DMCA takedown system when a corporation strikes at legally protected speech using the DMCA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fire it up
You know one of the fun things about being on this website is watching critic, after critic, publicly immolate themselves, all the while screaming that everything is fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
"...your bias has effectively killed your career."
Is this like that Trumpy thing where he thinks the gravest insult to someone is to baselessly claim they have low ratings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
Actually, the court said nearly the opposite. What it said was that ``[a] reasonable viewer would be able to differentiate between Maddow’s commentary and the actual news she is reporting'' [slip op. pg 18]. It goes on to say that ``Maddow discloses all relevant facts'' surrounding her commentary [slip op. pg 19].
It went on to discuss Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, for a more extreme example of opinion based on disclosed facts. You may want to review that case as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
They're not. Alex Jones simply fails at even hitting that basic standard. Calling a school shooting a hoax and pulling off shit like that will tend to make you look repulsive. That your hero fails this basic standard is not something most people will shed tears over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
First off, the facts, as presented, do not care about your feelings, you propaganda-spewing jackbooted thug.
Secondly, it's OAN that should not be taken seriously. For those of you in the audience playing, "dismissed with prejudice" means that the case will NOT be entertained at court and if any of the parties involved tries to pull this particular stunt again, the courts ARE gonna be mad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
Ah, sorry, Was referring to Chozen, who may or may not be a known harasser...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a Matter of Law Now
Damn son my brand new washing machine doesn't even spin that fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OAN - Fair? Unbalanced!
In more ways than one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be glad the court refused to open that box OAN
OAN may be paying out the nose here(and rightfully so) but they should be grateful they lost this one as if 'opinions that someone doesn't like' are enough to qualify as lawsuit-worthy defamation I'm pretty sure they would not enjoy the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be glad the court refused to open that box OAN
OANN : Give us more than $10,000,000.00 (Doc 1, 2019-09-09)
MSNBC: For what?! (Doc 18, 2019-10-21)
Judge: You're crazy. You pay them. (Doc 30, 2020-05-22)
MSNBC: LA media litigation is expensive. They should pay us $323,965.00 + $9,706.28 (Doc 35, 2020-06-05)
OANN: San Diego lawyers aren't that expensive. How about $84,995.80 + $9,706.28 (Doc 37, 2020-6-26)
MSNBC: Now that we think about it, it should be $347,244.00 + $10,724.36 + what ever we are separately awarded for winning the appeal. (Doc 38, 2020-07-09)
Judge: You both make some good points and some weak ones. OANN will pay $247,667.50 + $10,724.36. (Doc 40, 2021-02-05)
Herring Networks, INC v. Maddow (3:19-cv-01713) District Court, S.D. California
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Techdirt GARBAGE
Tim Cushing isn't a journalist. When he opens up an article with false statements, such as "One America News (OAN) -- a "news" network apparently more "fair and balanced" than the extremely right-leaning Fox News ".
OAN is not in any way funded by Russia. So the Judge's assertions are false. I don't see that added as commentary in the article?
Clearly this article is intended to falsely frame OAN in a false context to the readers of techdirt.
This is another garbage article by Tim Cushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
OAN is not in any way funded by Russia. So the Judge's assertions are false. I don't see that added as commentary in the article?
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, then?
Clearly this article is intended to falsely frame OAN in a false context to the readers of techdirt.
Lol. Clearly this comment is intended to falsely frame Techdirt in a false context to the readers of your ignorant comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
Heh, another garbage comment by Badghad Bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
There are no garbage comments, save your bullshit about "Badghad Bob". You losers have no idea who is who, because you're all just posers and paid liars.
Cut any brake lines lately? I hear that kind of advice occurs a lot on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
And where's your proof of said accusation? Or are you just pulling lies outta your ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only from trolls like you, shitbird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
Hello fellow comrade Americaniski. I too like the baseball and the lagers and the fast cars. I am definitely in the one St Petersburg and not the one that is cold as the witches tits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
OAN is not in any way funded by Russia. So the Judge's assertions are false. I don't see that added as commentary in the article?
You might want to ask OAN that question...they're the ones who didn't dispute that accusation.
Man, you fuckers sure know how to lose, don't you? It's always a big plot against you guys, and you're not even remotely smart enough to counter it. How does it feel being that impotent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
Hello fellow comrade Americaniski. I too like the baseball and the lagers and the fast cars. I am definitely in the one St Petersburg and not the one that is cold as the witches tits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
"OAN is not in any way funded by Russia."
That's a very defensive sounding statement considering that wasn't actually what was alleged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE
Ah, Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Curiously Specific Denial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defame
Someone who works for a media site partly or fully financed by Russia or any other country is not automatically a liar, an automaton, or a propagandist. Was Larry King a Russian agent?
Maddow claimed that the OAN person was. That was a smear. That was pure defamation.
Meaning that claiming someone is a Russian agent simply because they did reporting for Sputnik is defamation. Meaning it's not bullshit.
Instead of celebrating corruption in the judiciary, why not support justice. Because you know.....they coming for you one day.
You'll look as stupid then as you look now. Crack down on defamation and smears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the article: “The OAN reporter, Kristian Rouz, also worked for Sputnik, the government-controlled Russian news outlet.” This is not under dispute. Hell, OAN didn’t even dispute that fact in its lawsuit. To believe Rouz is a propagandist for the Russian government isn’t a huge leap in logic.
It was a legally protected opinion based on the fact that Sputnik is controlled by the Russian government—and the courts have said as much.
We do support justice around here. That’s why most of us here are in favor of the courts dismissing this obvious SLAPP with prejudice. No justice is served by allowing OAN to refile the same claims with a slightly different coat of paint and starting this process over again.
That sounds like a threat. Did you just make a threat against Techdirt writers? Because that could be legally actionable.
I’m sorry Dear Leader didn’t get to “open up the libel laws” so that anything negative said about people you like/defend/bootlick for can’t be considered legally actionable~. You have my sincerest sympathies~. It really is an absolute shame~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On an unrelated and hilarious note, Techdirt has taken money from the Charles Koch Foundation.
Which means that the people possibly funding all this nonsense also funds some of their critics, and might explain the recent low-quality (when compared to the usual Techdirt article) pro-Republican propaganda we're seeing recently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pro-Republican propaganda has always been low-quality. But I repeat myself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
Correct, would this survive the shoe on the other foot test? If someone is working for, or has worked for the BBC, ABC, PBS, etc. and also working for a private US news agency does that make that entire news agency "literally British/Australian/American" propaganda?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
Correct, would this survive the shoe on the other foot test? If someone is working for, or has worked for the BBC, ABC, PBS, etc. and also working for a private US news agency does that make that entire news agency "literally British/Australian/American" propaganda?
That also would not be defamation and would easily get dismissed. So, yes, it would "survive the shoe on the other foot test." I know this because I actually understand how defamation law works.
Unlike you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
I already said I don't believe it is defamation because its an opinion show. But on the matter of it being a ridiculous laughable opinion. It fails the shoe on the other foot test. There a multiple state media outlets in this world. Working for one does not make someone and whoever hires them paid propaganda.
I think in the wake of how the ABC is reporting on Australia's draconian tactics, you would have a hard time arguing that the ABC isn't a government propaganda outlet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s a matter of perspective, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe it's a matter of you and Mike running and hiding from Chozen's winning argument like weak step-sisters. Or maybe weak twin sisters. Or maybe the same person (you and Mike) writing under two names because none of your logic or written opinion survives the "stinks like shit" test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Impotent internet vitriol and cartoonish misogyny which rises to the level of poorly written Hollywood villain, does nothing to articulate your philosophical disagreement.
Indeed, as Chozen makes a repeatedly factual assertion and has not yet backed it up with a direct quote from:
And that doesn't even include the repeatedly asserted defense that the challenged words of Maddow were substantially true when read in a reasonable manner which the judges didn't find a need to consider given the precedents invoked.
So the one evading engagement with the facts of the debate is Chozen who would prefer that we not look at the facts and the law. If Chozen's assertion had a leg to stand on, it would be a simple cut-and-paste. But the Judges wrote nothing dispargaing to Maddow or her MSNBC show, leaving Chozen's post like the self-pity of a Incel -- baseless and a bit ugly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Chozen's winning argument
Winning what? Maddow's still not paying, and OAN is out a quarter of a million dollars..
Or is it 'winning' in the context of, say building a wall and Mexico paying for it?
That's the kind of winning you guys are enjoying, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’ve been replying to their bullshit even though I know they’re a troll and have no intent of admitting their complete wrongness even as it’s pointed out to them (by multiple people!). “Running and hiding” would be what someone like you does when confronted with facts you can’t spin and logic you can’t outmatch.
Yeah, I’m not nearly smart enough to be Mike. I’m barely smart enough to be me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I choo-choo-choose you
The level of projection coming from you is just astounding. Ain't that right Chozen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
I already said I don't believe it is defamation because its an opinion show.
That's not why.
But on the matter of it being a ridiculous laughable opinion. It fails the shoe on the other foot test.
It does not. As I said, the end result would be the same if it were "on the other foot." You cannot cite an example to the contrary.
There a multiple state media outlets in this world. Working for one does not make someone and whoever hires them paid propaganda.
And that was not the issue at the heart of the case, because the case is about defamation. The issue is was anything said defamatory. And it was not.
I think in the wake of how the ABC is reporting on Australia's draconian tactics, you would have a hard time arguing that the ABC isn't a government propaganda outlet.
Again, that makes no fucking difference at all in this case. You keep moving goalposts because you're a shitty pathetic troll who doesn't know the first thing about defamation law. I note that you have moved on from your laughably wrong statements about "dismissal with prejudice" being rare. It is not. You don't know what you're talking about, and if you weren't a sad little troll child, you'd educate yourself. But you are. So fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
Weak argument: "So fuck off". Are you 12?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
It's not an argument. The verb is used in the imperative mood and thus is a command. Do you know why that poster is confident enough with his relation with this site to issue such a command?
Apparently you do not.
Once again, the ignorance of the subject matter, history, law, and/or the US Constitution renders your posts into a tragic self-own and the absence of self-awareness robs you of the compassion of others.
Anyone who gives the least bit of human gratitude for online social interaction at TechDirt knows who Mike Masnick is. Anyone with the most cursory introspection into the site on which they will attempt to portray themselves as a victim of tertiary syphilis would know the relation between Mike and Tech Dirt is a particularly privileged one. Thanks to the unhelpful irksomeness of posters like Chozen and yourself, while you go about trying to "win" what you think are debates, Mike has almost certainly won yet another free lunch at Benihana or Greens or possibly an upscale ramen shop.
Apropos quote: I'm laughing at the "superior intellect."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
Is that a quote from Star Trek? Kahn! I'm laughing at your "superior intellect"! Strange quote to use in this context. Sounds like something an angry lesbian would say.
"Once again, the ignorance of the subject matter, .... , blah blah blah".
You sound like Wendy the President of the Lesbian Separatist Society in the UK, is that you, Wendy? "Unhelpful irksomeness", yeah, that's you, another longtime Techdirt poser. I read all about you and Techdirt on the Ripoff Report/Wendy Cockcroft (or was it CockSoft because she's so ugly?).
The only people who know who MM is are those (1) paid to post on this site and (2) traitors, perverts, posers, liars and clueless children who should be legally protected from this intellectual garbage (3) sitting Federal Judges in Waco Texas who are waiting patiently to sit and chat in a court of law about what Mike and his band of criminals are up to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
You claim to have a predictive model. But I actually demonstrated my predictive model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
The Techdirt "predictive model":
Stupid one sided article with profanity smeared all over it, often in the title
Stupid one sided comments reinforcing the stupid article from regulars with a million posts and fake names
Anything submitted contrary to the "party line" censored within minutes by the cowardly nameless and totally fake "community"
Dipshits like you ignoring the obvious shit-smearing toilet that Techdirt has always been, and pretending legitimate arguments have EVER been considered on this site - they never have
Rinse, repeat. From beginning to end, little else will be found here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot T
Then why not leave the site and never come back if you're tired of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Fo
My life of public service compels me to try to identify and name public disgusting shit for what it is. Consider it a pursuit of truth as a tribute to both my ancestors and fellow American citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Othe
I highly doubt that. I think it's an obsession that you need to get help for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re continually exposing yourself to something you hate—reading it, commenting on it, possibly committing it to memory, maybe even stalking individual commenters/writers—because you consider trolling people to be a “public service”?
Touch some grass, my dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Othe
Hows the MLM scam going bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Othe
I've seen your public service for four years, Hamilton. It's nothing but writing Melania Trump/Shiva Ayyadurai/Fran Drescher fanfiction in hopes that it somehow proves Shiva invented email. That is terrible, terrible service.
If you want to name public disgusting shit you can start with all the fanfiction you wrote with John Smith, aka MyNameHere. I know, I know, it's an embarrassing relic from the time when you were so sure that tiger fairies would help Shiva win and you penned love letters to John "Herrick" Smith. But evidence makes you cucks piss your diapers, so I've heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Othe
The fact that you have never once done such a thing proves uour claim to be a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
hey jhon boi, molested any kids lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
Actually, working for a state media outlet is pretty nearly the definition of a paid propagandist.
If a person working for a state media outlet takes a second job outside of that state media outlet, such person and the second employer should both expect some suspicion to fall upon the second employer. Either that second employer is not fully informed, or that second employer is knowingly providing a platform for a paid propagandist.
In this case, it appears from the Daily Beast article that Herring Networks (OAN) provide a platform for a state media outlet employee, and that employee uses the platform to insert unreliable material consistent with the state media outlet's views. See pg 4 of the article furnished as docket 18-3 (exh `A') in the trial court.
Here, I have corrected you twice this evening. Please consider yourself insulted in the grossest terms you can imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test
How does it feel to be so fucking stupid that you don't understand the difference between a public house and public housing.
Also, let me remind you that you have no idea about trespassing laws and that yes, I am legally allowed to use force to kick somebody out of my house even though I once invited them in. Hell, most states I could shoot somebody for trespassing in my own home.
So, again, how does it feel to be so fucking stupid that everybody here laughs at you when you make such stupid comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defame
That was a smear. That was pure defamation.
I don't know how defamation works in Russia, restless, but that is not at all how it works in the US.
Instead of celebrating corruption in the judiciary, why not support justice.
There was no corruption of the judiciary. This was a very, very straightforward application of the 1st Amendment. Why do you hate the Constitution restless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defame
Someone who gets paid by a state-sponsored organ of propaganda to tell stories and who sometimes repeats that state's propaganda would appear to be a propagandist.
The original Daily Beast article and Maddow's same-day video segment (3m34s), which refers to it, both make it clear that Sputnik is “the Kremlin’s official propaganda outlet” and Kristian Rouz was both writing for Sputnik and giving stories as a "“One America correspondent", some of which repeat unprompted “Kremlin propaganda.”
Neither accused Rouz of being an automaton, but it is clear that Rouz has repeated debunked stories as part of purported news.
Larry King was paid by a state-sponsored organ of propaganda to tell stories so if he was not a propagandist, then at a minimum he was paid to help put an acceptable face on an organ of propagandia. Then he did it again ... for another.
He might not be a committed Russian agent, but he does seem to have a history of taking money to be a talking head without the type of strict vetting to prevent unseemly associations with propaganda.
But that was based entirely on the Daily Beast story and was not a contested statement of fact in the lawsuit.
No. It was true. Truth is always a defense to a charge of defamation.
Except that
Where is there "corruption in the judiciary" ? Just because you don't understand the issue enough to know why multiple judges were bound by law to rule against OANN, an outcome predicted in a letter by MSNBC in 2019 before the lawsuit began*, is no reason to allege "corruption."
An important principle of justice is supporting truth and the First Amendment protects people who tell the truth. Scientists, Journalists, and Public Health official seek out the truth and hope to spread it.
I don't know who this "they" you refer to might be nor have you given an example of them persecuting anyone. If anything, this story has told us if a rich family-owned business tries to sue you for their hurt feelings over nothing and caused you to spend over a quarter million dollars to argue in court, some state laws may help you recover most of that wasted money.
As a published amateur mathematician, I don't look stupid all the time and I wonder why you think I do now. Are you responding to something specific or is this a general paranoiac rant?
You say "Crack down on defamation and smears." and I say "Promote the First Amendment, Suppor Truth, It's not defamation if it true, It's not defamation if it is pure opinion based on disclosed facts, Fair comment and criticism is not an unseemly smear, and If OANN doesn't like people pointing out their reporters were paid to promote Russian propaganda stories, then maybe they need to clean house rather than attacking their critics."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Exhibit D
Back on August 6, 2019, NBC wrote OANN a letter which was attached to the complaint. Here are two paragraphs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defame
You'd love it in Singapore. We crack down on freedom of expression all the time.
Perhaps you'd also like to be on the CCP payroll as well? You seem like a good fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defame
You'll look as stupid then as you look now.
Aren't you due for your daily dose of livestock de-wormer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not defamation if it's true
"That was pure defamation."
Oh shit son! They should have totally sued her for it then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]