It is undeniably true that every play and every call--correct and/or erroneous--affects the game.

Maybe. But there's a Clutch Player of the Year & a Final 2-Min. Review b/c--just as the Finals (tail end of season) crowns a champ--the tail end of a game often "crowns" a winner.

So, to ensure outcomes are determined by play(ers), refs must be at their best during these times--esp. re easy calls.

Correction: ~51.8 sec.

I know nothing of the game, but Enter The Dragon starring Bruce Lee was an absolutely thrilling part if my childhood.

Two comments:

1. I know women who undoubtedly find the character in your AI image far more attractive than the JW version (or ZE).

2. Relatedly, the most repulsive looking human I’ve ever seen had a spouse and two children, so beauty is not a prerequisite to desire.

I neither stated nor implied I was impressed at all, much less favorably so.

Likewise, I made no claim re any actual known falsehood. Rather, I simply posed a question in the form of a hypothetical. I thought that was obvious; both from the words I used and those I avoided.

Thank you. That’s precisely the kind of analysis I was seeking.

I’m not trying to argue anything. I’m genuinely trying to learn. If I “progressed” it’s probably because I read Taiibi’s complaint this afternoon, as well as his attorneys’ bios.

So even if a congressperson acts with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth, in republishing on social media a known falsehood about someone made by or to them during a congressional hearing—and further amplifies that falsehood with inflammatory comments—that is non-actionable opinion?

I’m happy to learn, so please explain. Does it matter *if/whether* the:

1. disclosed “facts” are untrue; &/or

2. congresswoman republished them outside of Congress (e.g., on BlueSky); &/or

3. republication is outside of legislative duties such that the speech & debate clause is non-applicable?

Maybe one or both of us is misunderstanding the other, but I think your most recent post gets us back to the point in my original post re vagueness.

Again, I’m not a defamation law expert. But the answer might be found in your question.

That is, for a statement to be an opinion, it must be a statement that can be neither proven nor disproven.

Thus, if it is “based on disclosed facts”, then the opinion defense might not be available.

I’m a lawyer, but no expert in defamation law; yet this post seems like *possible* defamation. Maybe the vagueness of “It’s telling…” will save you, but maybe not. 🤷‍♂️

I know nothing of these allegations, but no innocent person need feel compelled to defend oneself absent a civil or criminal action.