Difference between revisions of "Free Speech Alive And Well In Cobb"
Free Speech Alive And Well In Cobb (view source)
Revision as of 01:49, 25 February 2023
, 01:49, 25 February 2023→The Hearing
(username removed) |
(username removed) Tags: Mobile web edit Mobile edit |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
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. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
"I won the case by results only" McMaster stated after the hearing. "I can’t say that my presentation had much to do with it." McMaster continued: "At the end of the day, the record simply showed that the facts and the law were on my side and that became more and more apparent the more the opposing counsel spoke. It was really a ridiculous case to have to defend against, and I felt Judge Thompson took it seriously but also with some tongue-in-cheek humor." McMaster didn’t elaborate on that but some | "I won the case by results only" McMaster stated after the hearing. "I can’t say that my presentation had much to do with it." McMaster continued: "At the end of the day, the record simply showed that the facts and the law were on my side and that became more and more apparent the more the opposing counsel spoke. It was really a ridiculous case to have to defend against, and I felt Judge Thompson took it seriously but also with some tongue-in-cheek humor." McMaster didn’t elaborate on that but some excerpts of Judge Thompson’s interrogation of plaintiff’s counsel from the hearing shed some light on McMaster’s comment: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
JUDGE THOMPSON: Do you think the word "dangerous" is libelous in and of itself?<br> | JUDGE THOMPSON: Do you think the word "dangerous" is libelous in and of itself?<br> | ||
(username removed)