Just gonna get this out of the way:
Without commenting on the acquittal, the fact that a jury acquitted Rittenhouse does not mean it is defamatory to call him a "murderer," and it *especially* does not render any *past* statements defamatory.
Without commenting on the acquittal, the fact that a jury acquitted Rittenhouse does not mean it is defamatory to call him a "murderer," and it *especially* does not render any *past* statements defamatory.
2/ An acquital is just that: the government did not meet its burden of proof for a criminal conviction. It does not establish facts for all of time; it establishes whether the jury thought the government proved its case.
3/ Even if it *did* establish fact/truth, it would still be irrelevant to 99.99% of the claims people are yammering about. Why?
Because those statements were all made before the acquittal. Defamation requires fault. In Rittenhouse's case, he'll get public figure treatment
Because those statements were all made before the acquittal. Defamation requires fault. In Rittenhouse's case, he'll get public figure treatment
4/ So actual malice will need to be proven, meaning that a defendant would have had to have known that their statement was false, or *in fact* entertained serious doubts as to their veracity.
That's a stupidly difficult burden to meet.
That's a stupidly difficult burden to meet.
5/ That state of mind is at *the time of publication*. It wouldn't make sense to hold people liable for statements made without fault but later turned out to be untrue.
That's not how it works, and saying that the acquittal renders past statements defamatory is ignorant at best
That's not how it works, and saying that the acquittal renders past statements defamatory is ignorant at best
6/ Needless to say, calling him a "murderer" or a "white supremacist" continues to be expressions of opinion that will not support a defmation claim.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
