Legal Hyperbole

Remember when Stormy Daniels lost her defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump? The justification for dismissing the case had a lot to do with this concept of rhetorical exaggeration. Commenting on a sketch circulated by Ms. Daniels` lawyer of a man who allegedly threatened Ms. Daniels, Trump tweeted: “A sketch years later of a nonexistent man. A total scammer`s job to play fake media for fools (but they know it)! The court concluded that the tweet was not feasible “because the tweet in question constitutes a `rhetorical exaggeration` generally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States.” Similarly, a federal court in Virginia concluded that the reference to a legal petition seeking whistleblower status as a “political ploy to violate the Northam government and other state leaders” was “certainly a `rhetorical exaggeration` that no reasonable person would interpret as fact.” (See Moschetti v. Office of the Inspector General, August 11, 2022). Under Illinois law, rhetorical exaggeration is not considered defamatory. The Illinois Supreme Court has recognized that such statements are protected and exempt from liability by the First Amendment. Rhetorical exaggeration refers to statements that use exaggerated language to emphasize a point. The Supreme Court described it as “sharp, exaggerated and heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral indignation.” Rhetorical exaggerations should not be taken literally and cannot be proven to be true or false. More recently, a federal district court argued that President Donald Trump engaged in rhetorical exaggeration “generally associated with politics and political discourse in the United States” when he tweeted comments by Stephanie Clifford, who claimed to have had an intimate relationship with Trump in 2006 and threatened by a stranger to leave Trump alone in 2011.

Clifford worked with a cartoonist to produce an image of this unknown man after Trump was elected president. Exaggeration has been used in literature for many centuries. Heroic dramas, which are dramas that emphasize size and excess, often use exaggerations to broaden the impact and epic character of the genre. Modern fairy tales also use exaggeration to exaggerate the achievements and characteristics of their protagonists. For example, Paul Bunyan`s American story relies heavily on exaggerations to establish Bunyan`s vast stature and skills. [12] But sometimes we get carried away by the moment. We want our client to know that this request for summary judgment is just as important as the Gettysburg address, or at least a good Oscar speech; that a rejection of our petition would really be an unchecked Orwellian dictatorship. The problem is that this kind of exaggeration isn`t just bad writing, and it`s not just unconvincing. In fact, it hurts your case. Indeed: “Pennsylvania courts recognize a difference between suable defamation and mere obscenities, insults, and other verbal abuse.

Beverly v. Trump, 182 F.3d 183, 187–88 (3rd Cir.1999). “Claims that are merely boring or embarrassing, or that are nothing more than rhetorical exaggerations or a forceful epithet, are not defamatory.” (cited in Kryeski v. Schott Glass Techn., Inc., 426 Pa.Super. 105, 626 A.2d 595, 601 (1993)). In the Beverly case, the Third Circle found that this was “reasonably a forceful and exaggerated reprimand, but not a specific charge of criminal misconduct” when the accused exclaimed at a rally, “You are all criminals.” Beverly v. Trump, 182 F.3d 183, 187–88 (3rd Cir.1999). USA Techs., Inc. v. Doe, 713 F.

Supp. 2D 901, 908 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Rhetorical exaggeration is defined as “extravagant exaggeration for rhetorical effects” for purposes of the First Amendment. Ass`n v. Bresler (1970), Postman v. Austin (1974) and Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1989) are notable cases. In Watts v. United States (1969), the accused was acquitted of the federal sentence for the threat because he said, “The first person he would include in his field is L.B.J.”; The court found this to be a “political exaggeration.” [11] Federal and state legal opinions are replete with examples of defendants using harsh, insulting, and derogatory language that is not defamatory because it is rhetorical exaggeration.

So how can you avoid ending up on the “What Not to Write” list? Stay away from these three things that tend to go beyond the legal from passionate to ridiculous: exaggeration is often used for emphasis or effect. In casual language, it acts as an amplifier:[5][6] saying “the one-ton bag”[7] simply means that the bag was extremely heavy. [8] The rhetorical device can be used for serious, ironic or comic effects. [9] Understanding exaggerations and their use in context can help to understand the speaker`s point of view. Hyperbole usually conveys feelings or emotions of the speaker or those they may talk about. It can be used in some form of humor, excitement, stress, and many other emotions, depending on the context in which the speaker uses it. [10] A few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court again used rhetorical exaggeration to protect the union`s use of the term “scab” in Facteur v.

Austin (1974). The court held that the use of the term in a labour dispute was an example of “vague and figurative language” rather than defamation. The court said the use of the term did not mean that the employees had actually committed crimes. Under Virginia law, rhetorical exaggeration is not defamatory. Rhetorical exaggeration refers to statements that, while at first glance appear to express factual statements about a person, cannot reasonably be construed as fact. To prove defamation, a plaintiff must prove falsehood; Rhetorical exaggerations do not literally claim facts, so they are not likely to be proven true or false. Therefore, the courts treat them as an unenforceable opinion. Rhetorical exaggerations are there to protect the obvious gags, not the subtle things. To be clear, not all judges take the bait.

Last year, a Texas court rejected InfoWars host Alex Jones` defense that he was just exaggerating rhetorically when he called the Sandy Hook massacre a false flag. So while Barstool, Trump, Carlson — and now ex-octopus Sidney Powell — can pretend they gave their fans a nod, the judges don`t have to get involved in the joke. Consider the history of successful deals against the tabloid press. While no sane person should believe what they read in the tabloids, real people do, and judges have punished harmful lies accordingly. Clifford filed a lawsuit, but U.S. District Judge James Otero ruled in Trump`s favor, calling the statement a rhetorical exaggeration. He argued that because Trump tweeted in “an incredulous tone,” his words could not have been taken literally. This is because “`imaginative expression` [and] `rhetorical exaggeration`. has traditionally contributed much to the discourse of our nation. Rosenaur v. Scherer (2001) 88 Cal.App. 4.

260, 279. In Rosenaur, calling the plaintiff a “thief” and a “liar” during a political campaign was seen as an exaggeration rather than a usable slander, because “the courts have to be careful so that we can have a lively public debate about .. Public Affairs. If we are wrong, it should be set aside to allow for a free discussion of current events. We need to give these comments a lot of respite. The court dismissed the case, finding that these statements were nothing more than a rhetorical exaggeration: As one California court explained this basic rule: “Statements do not imply a manifestly false statement of fact and therefore cannot form the basis of a defamation action if they cannot reasonably be construed as facts about a person.