The judge ruled that the MSNBC pundit was using hyperbole when he said Patel has "been visible at nightclubs" far more than at the FBI building.

A defamation case launched by Patel got SLAPPed down, with the Judge calling Patel a mentally substandard idiot who cannot understand hyperbole.

So its now a part of US case law that Kash Patel is not “A person of reasonable intelligence and learning.”

Normaly I’d copy paste the entire article but apparently that is now a dire matter of copyright law, so uh, editorializing!

If the full text of a non paywalled article is posted, and then also an editorial is appended by the poster, this probably counts as transformative content, and is thus fair use.

If the full text is posted and there is no clear commericial gain, its not monetizable, its again also probably fair use.

(Hrm…)

If hardly anyone reads the specific post of the copy pasted news article, in comparison to the number of people who actually go to the website, its probably fair use.

In conclusion: lemmy.world apparently thinks it is a very big and important player in the online world, and may or may not be monetizing our posts to it.

  • tomatolung@sopuli.xyz
    20·
    3 days ago

    The judge ruled that the MSNBC pundit was using hyperbole when he said Patel has “been visible at nightclubs” far more than at the FBI building.Kash Patel filed a $250 million lawsuit against The Atlantic, he has lost a different A day after FBI Director defamation claim, against news analyst and pundit Frank Figliuzzi.

    U.S. District Judge George Hanks Jr. dismissed Patel’s lawsuit against Figliuzzi, former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, who has been an analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.

    …

    ”Hanks wrote, “A person of reasonable intelligence and learning 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. By saying that Patel spent ‘far more’ time at nightclubs than his office, Figliuzzi delivered his answer ‘in an exaggerated, provocative and amusing way,’ employing rhetorical hyperbole.”The judge wrote that because he found that the statement was “rhetorical hyperbole,” it cannot be considered defamation.