Replies

Since when is “intentional false communication” not a lie?

You're getting hung up on language in what is really both a legal and existential defense.

Rudy Truthed his belief that is now being questioned by the majority. For legal reasons, he may back off his claim but in no way does that indicate a lie or liability. We are all entitled to our own Truth outside of the gatekeepers of the MSM, Deep State, or even "reality".

Many now take seriously the possibility that we live in a simulation. Physists also posit a multiverse in which every possible choice is played out in branching versions of reality that are packed side by side into the total metaverse. Is it really so far-fetched that Rudy spoke truthfully that Ruby was curing ballots like they were lines of cocaine in his branch, and afterwards time pirates from the Deep State pulled the rug out from under him by patching him through to a different branch?

Actually, I was questioning YOUR language.

It appeared you were trying to differentiate “defamation” from a “lie.”

It would appear that the very meaning of defamation involves lying—an intentional false statement (or “communication”).