Sydney Power Asks to Dismiss the Defamation Suit Against her
Sydney Power Asks to Dismiss the Defamation Suit Against Her
Along with asking the court to transfer the case against her to the Northern District of Texas, Attorneys for Sidney Powell are asking a federal judge to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed against her claiming that “[I]t was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern.”
Going further, Powell claims:
“[I]t was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern. Those members of the public who were interested in the controversy were free to, and did, review that evidence and reached their own conclusions—or awaited resolution of the matter by the courts before making up their minds. Under these circumstances, the statements are not actionable.”
Statement of Fact
The 1st amendment protects statements of opinion that have no provable false factual connotation. Simply claiming a statement is opinion is insufficient because we do not get to decide the characterzation of our statements and opinions often imply an assertion of objective fact that is actionable in defamation. To have a claim against a person for defamation, what was said or written must first be a statement susceptible of being proved true or false.
Imaginative Expression or Hyperbole
Even if a statement is expressly or impliedly factual, if no reasonable reader could understand the statement to be true, the statement is not actionable in defamation. To protect public debate, the court has extended protections to imaginative expression or rhetorical hyperbole, which has traditionally added much to the discourse, especially modernly. Therefore, if not reasonable person could understand “His brain is the size of a pea.” to be factual, it will be considered protected hyperbole. Therefore, if the court determines that no reasonable person would believe Powell’s implication of bribery or self-dealing when she said, “The state bureau of investigation for Georgia ought to be looking into financial benefits received by Mr. Kemp and the secretary of state’s family about that time.” There is no action in defamation.
These questions above are a matter of law, which means a judge, not a jury, decides the two threshold question of 1) whether Powell’s statements are opinion and 2) whether they can be categorized as imaginative expression or rhetorical hyperbole.
Inconsistency
Powell’s motion could also cause problems for her if she is now asserting factual allegations filed by her realting to the election are now merely opinion, imaginative expression, or rhetorical hyperbole.