Too add clarification on something I keep noticing, which might be confusing to understand:

It’s actionable if you say something defamatory that you claim is in a public record if it actually is not in that public record. (1/6) https://twitter.com/michaelsaltzesq/status/1322936821878190080

Katie Joy’s problem is that she does not understand that she is not being sued for her opinion. She is being sued for stating false information as facts upon which to then base an opinion. It’s nuanced, but that’s how KJ is trying to hide her defamation. (2/6)

I’ll give you an example:

“I think ___ is a fraud.”

This statement is not actionable. (3/6)

But how about this:

“I think ___ is a fraud because he took a loan out on his mother’s home and stole the equity.”

This is no longer just an opinion. (4/6)

It relies on a statement of fact about the loan. However, if the thing with the loan never happened, then a false fact has been stated, which can get you sued. (5/6)

So now you have a fact that is false and hurtful because it was used to make people develop an opinion that ___ is a fraud.

This is called portrayal in a false light. (6/6)