In a decision with potentially large ramifications, New York Federal Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall won't dismiss a libel suit against "Shitty Media Men" creator Moira Donegan.
Explaining, the judge says it is possible that Donegan created the entry herself. The judge believes that Elliott should be able to explore whether the entry was fabricated. Accordingly, discovery proceeds, which will now put pressure on Google to respond to broad subpoena demands. The next motion stage could feature a high-stakes one about the reaches of CDA 230.
A Question for Our Legal Eagles
I’ve been watching the trial of George Zimmerman off and on over the past week and yesterday I caught Sean Hannity discussing it on his radio show. Hannity kept saying that the prosecution couldn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and, as such, the jury had no choice but to acquit.
Is this accurate? It was my understanding that the burden/standard of proof shifts when a defendant is making an affirmative defense, which I believe Zimmerman to be making when claiming that he shot Martin in self-defense. He does not seem to be denying that he shot Martin, but that he was justified in doing so.
Do I have this right? Or is Hannity right? Or something else entirely?
Please note: I do not intend this thread to rehash arguments about who did what, when, where, and why and what ought to come of it. I’m simply asking a procedural question about how the law works in cases such as this. I offer my appreciation in advance to those who can help us walk this narrow lane.