I don’t usually discuss politics; and I’m not going to discuss politics in this post; but I do want to discuss just a tiny bit about the First Amendment.
Judging by news reports:
Now, I have not seen the video in question. However, at least according to the article:
“County attorney Jennifer Rey said the video, posted by Karen Pauly-Gugliuzza of Leesburg, refers to commissioners as monsters, cold-hearted snakes and “dirty, rotten scoundrels.”
If that is the case, then there is a very uphill battle to prove defamation. Not only, as the article further notes,
“Defamation lawsuits are more difficult to win for public figures like the commissioners and they must prove actual malice”
But opinion and hyperbole are protected speech. As a general rule, only statements of provable fact give rise to defamation in this country and I rather doubt that a statement that someone is a “monster, snake and dirty rotten scoundrel” is a provable fact; it strikes me as an opinion, hyperbole and rhetoric.
I am not going to go into an extended discussion of First Amendment law; but I will point you to some posts by a first amendment lawyer who explains this sort of distinction far better than I could.
All of which are worth reading.