3 ms·

It's defamation per se (he repeatedly accused Unsworth of being a pedophile), proving damages is not necessary. I...do not understand what the jury was thinking

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• dragontamer 7y ago
  > I...do not understand what the jury was thinking. Allegedly, none of the jury members were on Twitter (although they may have used other social media accounts). As such, the jury was quite possibly thinking "There's no way a Twitter post could cause $190 Million in damages". They probably view Twitter posts with disdain and don't take them seriously. In effect, they probably believe that "a Tweet, even an untrue one, is unlikely to cause lasting damages".