[circlecity]

“ A court doesn’t make a ruling like that. If they are going to make a decision as a ruling then it is either deflamatory or not.”

That’s not true. Weissman was arguing that statements like this cannot be found to be defamation as a matter of law. The court is saying that the allegations of the plaintiff would be sufficient to sustain a verdict of defamation if a jury found them to be after trial. The issue is now up to the jury.

[whitney69]

“...potentially defamatory...”

As long as it remains that it is misleading and supposition. It’s kind of like being partially dead and leaves it open to decision without a preponderance of the vidence. Remove the word potentially, and that’s what the suit is about.

wy69