So far, so good. But context is important. The question isn't whether the jurors, all of whom consider themselves reasonable people, now hearing those claims in court would conclude they were assertions of provable fact. The question is whether the average reasonable Fox News viewer or Trump rally goer -- and no, the court will not take judicial notice that these are oxymorons -- would have taken them as provable facts when she uttered them in those contexts.Jadagul wrote: ↑23 Mar 2021, 22:52The standard is exactly what she articulates there: would a reasonable person take it to be a provable statement of fact.Jennifer wrote: ↑23 Mar 2021, 21:24 Is there a chance in hell of that defense even working to dismiss a slander or libel suit? I thought the hyperbole defense only applied to things like, if I tell everybody you're a "stupid motherfucker" you can't sue me for alleging that you've literally had sexual relations with your mom.
As for Jennifer's basic question, pleadings in the alternative are routine defenses. Plaintiff: You stole my teapot and broke it!. Defendant: I didn't steal it, I borrowed it. You gave me permission to break it. I didn't break it. It was broken when I received it. Etc. Who knows what, if anything, will stick but the defense is going to throw out any and every defense it can come up with and hope that at least one sticks.