Difference between revisions of "Free Speech Alive And Well In Cobb"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Free Speech Alive And Well In Cobb (view source)
Revision as of 00:09, 24 February 2023
, 00:09, 24 February 2023→The Ghost Allegations
(username removed) |
(username removed) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
==The Ghost Allegations== | ==The Ghost Allegations== | ||
Plaintiff Christopher Curry alleged that the defendants, Matthew D. McMaster, Matthew D. McMaster LLC and McMaster For Cobb LLC (collectively referred to as "McMaster") accused Curry of committing statutory rape and of being "dangerous" in McMaster’s article entitled | Plaintiff Christopher Curry alleged that the defendants, Matthew D. McMaster, Matthew D. McMaster LLC and McMaster For Cobb LLC (collectively referred to as "McMaster") accused Curry of committing statutory rape and of being "dangerous" in McMaster’s article entitled [https://mcmasterforcobb.com/why-matt ''Why I’m Running'']. McMaster filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Curry’s complaint on December 16, 2022, and the case was set down for a hearing on February 15, 2023. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
==The Hearing== | ==The Hearing== | ||
At the hearing on McMaster’s anti-SLAPP motion, Curry’s attorney argued that the alleged accusations against Curry of statutory rape and of being “dangerous” constituted libel per se. Libel per se under Georgia law requires a charge that one is guilty of a crime, dishonesty or immorality.<ref>Barber v. Perdue, 194 Ga.App. 287, 288, 390 S.E.2d 234, 235 (1989)</ref> However, not only was the article completely void of Curry’s name, no accusation of statutory rape could be pointed to by Curry’s attorney. | At the hearing on McMaster’s anti-SLAPP motion, Curry’s attorney argued that the alleged accusations against Curry of statutory rape and of being “dangerous” constituted libel per se. Libel per se under Georgia law requires a charge that one is guilty of a crime, dishonesty or immorality.<ref>Barber v. Perdue, 194 Ga.App. 287, 288, 390 S.E.2d 234, 235 (1989)</ref> However, not only was the article completely void of Curry’s name, no accusation of statutory rape could be pointed to by Curry’s attorney. | ||
(username removed)