Answered

Rock star Courtney Love had hired attorney Rhonda Holmes to investigate claims that certain persons had defrauded her and her daughter. She was in frequent contact with the lawyer and had anticipated that a lawsuit against the alleged perpetrators of the fraud was about to be filed when the lawyer suddenly stopped communicating with her. After having no contact with her lawyer for over a year, Love tweeted two wanna-be reporters," I was [expletive deleted] devastated when Rhonda J. Holmes, Esquire, of San Diego was bought off." She thought the tweet was private, but 6 minutes later, when she realized it was public, she deleted it. Homes sued her for slander per se. The jury agreed that the tweet was defamatory because people could reasonably interpret it as meaning that Holmes had been bribed, but it found in favor of the defendant because Love is a public figure and there was no evidence that Love knew the statement was false or had serious doubts about its truth. How do you think the Appellate Court ruled on appeal?

Answer :

luzdarchez

Answer and explanation:

After carefully reading these lines above and doing some deep research on the present case of study, I personally believe it is fair to conclude that the appellate court ruled on appeal the following way:

Holmes appealed. However, the appeallate court decided to confirm the jury's verdict. The jury rejected Holmes's arguments that the words used by the celebrity might have wanted to imply a bribe. If the suited statement was meant to be a false claim of bribery, then the situation would have constituted an act of true malice as a matter of law and as required by public figures claiming defamation.

Other Questions