"The court found that Figliuzzi's comment 'when taken in context, cannot have been perceived by a person of ordinary intelligence as stating actual facts about Patel.'"
"A reasonable person, the judge continued, 'would not have taken his statement literally: that Dir. Patel has actually spent more hours physically in a nightclub than he has spent physically in his office building.'"
"In other words: it was a joke. A sarcastic, hyperbolic quip. The kind of thing that is not defamation, but is, in fact, just someone clowning on a public official on cable television, something Americans are constitutionally permitted to do."
Kash Patel's $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic faced scrutiny for its questionable content and spelling errors. A federal judge dismissed Patel's other defamation case against Frank Figliuzzi, stating that Figliuzzi's comments were not taken literally and were perceived as a joke. The court ruled that the remarks could not be considered defamatory. Although Figliuzzi sought attorneys' fees under Texas law, the court denied this request, leaving Patel without compensation or penalties against him.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]