Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I fundamentally don't understand what Burke is saying because it doesn't square with the law itself.

She keeps saying that the law was intended only to protect people who can't afford to defend themselves in defamation actions. Yet the law includes no provision restricting its application to indigent persons, and I have seen nothing from the legislative record indicating this was the intent of the law.

She also says that the law only applies if there has already been a finding of malice. Again, there is nothing in the law itself or the legislative record saying this, she seems to think it should just have been inferred. And if that's the case, it needs to be clear because in order to have a finding of malice, the judge or jury must actually take that question up. In Blake's case, the judge never considered one way or another whether the case against her was brought with malice. And why would he? 47.1 doesn't say that's required, and he clearly believed 47.1 could only be applied later. There also seems to be this assumption that had Blake gone to trial on her case and won, that would have decided this issue, but it wouldn't have because *that* case didn't address whether the defamation case against Blake was brought "with malice."

Burke is essentially arguing that the law should be amended or changed. Which is fine, maybe it is not workable as written and needs to be fixed. But in that case, her problem isn't with Blake but with the CA legislators who adopted the law without addressing these issues. But Burke is going on right wing podcasts closely associated with Bryan Freedman to make these arguments in interviews that attack Blake for ever having brought the 47.1 motion in the first place, something Burke championed when it happened.

It's nonsense. I can't take this person seriously.[/quote]

47.1 explicitly says “without malice.” [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics