|
I'd like to see this one go to court. The respondent's attorney claims rhetorical hyperbole is protected speech; however, what I have previously read on the subject is that alleged defamation involving a person's means of earning a living is considered quite differently from the cited case studies. Judges may be more inclined to side with plaintiffs against respondents who used inflated language to exaggerate claims. Respondents are required to be in better control of their emotional displays when they're attacking someone's livelihood. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as defamation: everyone could just say "Well, that person really upset ME; so, I can say whatever I want.
|