Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
That is not at all what the court said. What it said is that it is not the courts' place to evaluate the substance of that report, and that it is inappropriate to argue that the same report defines the context around which such claims could be considered defamatory or that failure to read the report disqualified Mohammed from participating in public debate over this issue. The argument you are making would basically have given the company the ability to define truth. Instead, the court considered a wider context (described on page 11) that included comments posted to the town council's own Twitter account and a local newspaper article, both of which indicated a potential concern about the risk of contaminants. In the larger context, Mohammed's concerns would quite clearly have been made in good faith and done honestly.
That they bullied her into an apology and the sued anyway was just the icing on top of the cake.
|
To have an opinion on an issue you should have to educate yourself on the issue. Vaccine manufacturers should be able to sue anti-vaxxers for liable.