You are reading a single comment by @Brommers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I think they'd get the same level of personal intrusion in this country - so far as I'm aware the laws on disclosure in defamation cases isn't that different in the two jurisdictions - although the burden of proof in the US is more on the Claimant than the Defendant, even if the standard of proof is the same in both countries.
Brommers-
Right, sorry, it's the burden of proof on the plaintiff in the US that makes defamation cases so difficult. That pesky First Amendment.
Anyway, thanks for clearing things up. Have you considered moving to the states to practice in the lucrative field of social media torts? Apparently that's a thing.
¡apesta!
Yeah, as I was trying to point out a few pages back, the higher evidentiary standard to prove defamation in the US exposes the Clintons to a level of personal transparency they'd rather keep private. Even if it means being publicly accused of murder (Vince Foster), fraud (Whitewater), or treason (teh emailz).