And to be clear on the media claim of how this would hurt abused women from stepping forward.
She was not found to have been defamatory simply because there were no evidence to support her abuse claim. That would be wrong (and what the Time article ignorantly alludes to as a grab for outrage)
She was found to be defamatory because her own testimony and evidence was found to be fabricated with convincing evidence and testimony to support it was fabricated, to the point where her testimony can no longer be believed and where it is now believed she defamed out of malice.
There is a clear distinction, and one that played a heavy role in this case, and one that shouldn't be mischaracterized.
|