I can.
I am afraid your assessment of the judgement by the ECHR is just as wrong as your initial prediction that the McCann's would win their case.
Have you read the full judgement or just the abridged legal statement?
I think when you read something you miss the context totally, ie. when you say “factual basis” the actual wording is “sufficient factual basis”. The word sufficient adds a different context entirely.
Also you say
facts,...in order for freedom of speech to override defamation is if it has a factual basis
In the full statement from the judgement at point 82 it states
82. Finally, the Court recalls that, in order to assess the justification of a contested statement, it is necessary to distinguish between factual statements and value judgments. If the materiality of the facts can be proven, the latter do not lend themselves to a demonstration of their accuracy. The requirement that the truth of value judgments be established is impractical and infringes freedom of opinion itself, a fundamental element of the right guaranteed by Article 10. However, even where a statement amounts to a judgement of value, it must be based on a sufficient factual basis, otherwise it would be excessive (Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 31, 4 October 2016, and Egill Einarsson v. Iceland,no 24703/15, § 40, November 7, 2017).
It distinguishes between factual statements and value judgments and places no requirement for the truth of value judgments but only that they have “sufficient factual basis”.
The bar is much lower in the case of value judgments and it certainly is not the state of veracity that you have previously claimed.
At least you've tried... So are amarals claims based on sufficient factual basis.. What do you think is the factual basis for his claims.
There is not sufficient factual basis to prove Maddie died in the apartment... It was the PJ based on their misunderstanding of the evidence.
So what's the difference in my saying CB is guilty...
