• orcrist@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, and that just makes current and future lawsuits go faster. When the percent of the relevant facts have already been established by it a previous court, doesn’t take too long to get to the end stage, which is deciding damages for the new statements.

  • Arotrios@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is significant in terms of precedent - if the ruling stands, it’s dramatically less likely the argument will work in his other lawsuits.

    • funkyb@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      sorta. what is at issue here is that the actions in question are after he held the office. that isn’t a trivial difference.

      • FlowVoid@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It goes beyond that. Some of the statements were made while in office, but the judge ruled that those particular statements weren’t protected either.

  • Darkonion@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Will at some point she become too famous and then is there some weird shift in how libel and slander work in the U.S.? Just thinking about how the politicians are always slinging mud, but there seems to be a different standard.