Kevin Ryan's lawsuit - Update and Court documents here

[SpitfireIX]

. . . The threshold to meet for tossing a claim on a motion to dismiss is pretty high, but boy, if I was in Ryan's shoes, I wouldn't be feeling particularly confident at the moment despite that high threshold that the defendant has to meet. . . .

Isn't that "all of the facts and allegations, even if viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, clearly don't win," or something to that effect?

 

[SpitfireIX]

The Bill of Rights outlines rights and protections citizens have against their government, nothing else. It is intended to limit the powers of the Federal Government.

Private companies and individual citizens are not bound by the Bill of Rights. In other words, an individual cannot infringe your First Amendment right, only the government can.

-Gumboot

[nitpick]The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to state governments.[/nitpick]

 

[Tirdun]

I agree with you William. I think that the case ought to have merely used the word "opinions" instead of the qualified expression "outrageous opinions".

Lawyers make mistakes, sometimes.

I don't think it was a mistake. UL's lawyers are trying to describe the level of damage done to UL's reputation from the claims. Painting the statements as "outrageous" rather than simply incorrect quantifies UL's position.

I'd guess that UL's lawyer team sat around for a few moments picking exactly the adjective.

 

[gumboot]

[nitpick]The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to state governments.[/nitpick]

Quite correct. I should have said "It was intended to limit the powers of the Federal Government".

-Gumboot