<<may be false or may imply false facts>>
I guess since the judge has approved and ordered the use of the word "may" as an indication that something may or may not be true depending on what the final facts ultimately show, it would therefore be acceptable to use the same "may" in expressing other views and opinions. For example:
1. "XYZ may be crims," instead of XYZ are crims....
2. "Based on my research, XYZ may be full of crims" instead of XYZ is full of crims.
3. "XYZ may be fraudulently cooking the books"
4. "The court may have ordered me to make the retraction because my lawyer may not have showed up, but I may not have the same opinions as what I was ordered to retract and state may have occurred."
The affirmative action ordered as part of a preliminary injunction may be a crock, er not legally valid, IMO. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to protect the status quo pending a final ruling on the merits: it is not to give a party any of the ultimate relief it may want.
Hopefully, it will be remedied. Prior restraints of speech, even of potentially false speech, have never been approved by the Supreme Court. If one speaks falsely, then that person is liable for damages they cause. But, they cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, be prohibited from speaking in the first instance -- at least so long as it is not commercial speech.
The TI can be challenged, even if the lawyer did not show up at the hearing. It should be.
In the spirit of the moment, these may be my opinions.
Troy |
