<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Tweet Containing Question Mark Isn&#8217;t Defamatory&#8211;Boulger v. Woods	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/03/tweet-containing-question-mark-isnt-defamatory-boulger-v-woods.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/03/tweet-containing-question-mark-isnt-defamatory-boulger-v-woods.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:01:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: CLIP-ings: March 15, 2019 &#8211; CLIP-ings		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/03/tweet-containing-question-mark-isnt-defamatory-boulger-v-woods.htm#comment-2246</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CLIP-ings: March 15, 2019 &#8211; CLIP-ings]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:01:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=19746#comment-2246</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Question Mark Kills Defamation Claim: The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a defamation suit against actor James Woods on the basis that his allegedly defamatory tweet—which questioned whether the plaintiff was a political prop—was “reasonably susceptible to both a defamatory meaning . . . and an innocent meaning,” and therefore was not actionable as a matter of law under Ohio’s “innocent construction rule.” [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Question Mark Kills Defamation Claim: The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a defamation suit against actor James Woods on the basis that his allegedly defamatory tweet—which questioned whether the plaintiff was a political prop—was “reasonably susceptible to both a defamatory meaning . . . and an innocent meaning,” and therefore was not actionable as a matter of law under Ohio’s “innocent construction rule.” [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
