(09-20-2023, 10:28 AM)TomK Wrote:(09-20-2023, 09:08 AM)HiloJulie Wrote: TYPICALLY, the ability to sue a public figure is much more involved in proof and legal requirements.
That makes no sense. How does suing a public figure mean it's "much more involved in proof and legal requirements."? What does "much more involved in proof" mean? How about citing some case law and be done with this argument?
Please remember, you made the claim that "Typically, a public figure cannot sue or be sued for defamation.". What law or part of the constitution means a public figure typically can't be sued or cannot sue?
I think this explains what I’ve been saying all along.
https://www.pbs.org/standards/media-law-101/defamation/
Again, Watanabe has a case.
ETA: If suing public officials was as easy peasy as you seem to imply, todays House Judiciary Committee’s hearing would result in several hundred potential cases of defamation.
I’m also intrigued as to why you feel it necessary to berate me over my comments with such tenacity while saying nothing about the stuff Penn has said.