[Nursie]

This feels wrong, purely because it's not saying the statements weren't defamatory, but just that she didn't really mean it and everyone should have known that. Further, some of her statements (that she had evidence of fraud and foreign collusion) seem to be testable claims of fact, not simply opinion.

These actions took place in the context of a highly damaging campaign to undermine American democracy, and impugn multiple parties, including deliberate and repeated tarring the name of a manufacturer of voting machines.

Saying "nuh-uh, I didn't really mean it" should be no defence.

There also seems to be some "The statements were made on behalf of Sydney Powell the corporation, not the individual" in that doc, which also seems weaselly.

I hope the dismissal fails.

[Sacho]

I don't disagree about this use of defamation defense leaving a bad taste(it's been used by Trump to great success as well). I looked at the original complaint(https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do...) and I don't think there's any claim that alleges she made provably wrong factual claims. They do allege that she based several of her opinions on likely false(or missing) evidence, which is promising, but the bar they need to pass is purposefully high - they'd need to prove she knew the evidence was false(or lied about it existing).

Let's try to do it differently. One solution is to only allow truthful statements - this would most likely catch Powell. But that means you have to litigate every defamation claim on its merits, you would need a trial for each to determine whether the statements are "true" or not. Consider the complexity of the Oracle vs Google case, how difficult it is to establish facts in front of a court. Now imagine every giant corp brings defamation lawsuits against its detractors - sue all the random bloggers trying to bright to light that your medicine doesn't work, or that you're using child labor. Of course you have "mountains of evidence" against it, or at least you can claim so, and force a lengthy trial against people who can't afford it. How would you tackle this problem?

Even worse, what if you publish an extensive expose, but some of your facts are wrong? This is actually what happened in the decision that paved the way for the modern defamation defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan) Back then, it was the government trying to silence civil rights activism, nowadays it's more and more large corporations that would rather not have their dirty laundry aired. I genuinely don't see a way to amend the standard without sacrificing a lot of freedom of speech in the process.

What would have happened if Theranos sued all the publications that exposed their nonfunctional product? Would the publications even risk publishing if defamation suits always hang over their heads?

[Nursie]

I'm not sure, but I think there needs to be something that can hold such people to account when they embark upon a very well funded political and legal campaign to undermine democracy as they did, slinging mud in every possible direction and making up all sorts of heinous crap.

In this case a business has been materially harmed by her actions, actions which cannot have been taken in good faith (I realise we're straying into the territory of my opinions here). I think at the very least she should lose her license to practice law, and should forfeit any money made from her campaign of disinformation. She effectively weaponised her standing as a lawyer to sway public opinion, where she failed to make any progress in court.

I also think there's a difference when someone like Powell does this, in association with a political candidate, and when some whackaloon blogger makes claims.

> How would you tackle this problem?

I'll agree it's tough, and that's one great reason I'm not a legislator :)

I think there needs to be more emphasis on "loser pays" in the US. From what I understand that's quite rare. I agree that can often have unintended side effects, which is why I don't think it should be applied blanket-fashion (and why I think the "costs set at £1" rulings in UK law are a good thing).

But a generic solution? No idea. Perhaps the 'right' laws in this area don't exist yet, and it's quite hard to see what they might be.