The First Amendment isn’t a defense to defamation anyway. Even under US law he’d be liable if he made a defamatory statement with reckless disregard for its truth.
The First Amendment isn’t a defense to defamation anyway. Even under US law he’d be liable if he made a defamatory statement with reckless disregard for its truth.
If I was her attorney I’d fight that tooth and nail. Medical records are irrelevant to a defamation suit; the operative question is what information Rowling had available when she said her statements. The content of medical records Rowling had no access to aren’t germane to that question.
The rules in each country are different but as a general matter she’d be entitled to sue where she lived, where the defendants lived, or where the activities were directed. You don’t have to be a citizen to sue in a country’s court. So for Rowling she could be sued in the UK, in Algeria, and probably in France too.
Mostly—for the purposes of American law, “knowingly” includes reckless indifference for whether a statement is true or not true. In this instance though the distinction is irrelevent; whether Rowling said a false statement with actual knowledge it was false or with reckless indifference to whether it was false or not, the content of medical records for which she had no access are immaterial.