Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00233.png

20 Za 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 36 of 64 35 H2G8GIUC it mean original allegations, plural? And what does it mean claims, plural? We don't know, Judge, what that means. And I will predict that if you have Mr. Barton, Mr. Gow, and Ms. Maxwell testify in this case, they will say, we don't know what it means. They will say, we don't know what it means because it is totally vague. That's not the point they are trying to make. They are not trying to make the point in 2015 that everything this plaintiff has ever said is a falsehood. They are making the point that, media, use your head, figure out which of these allegations are true and false before you go around republishing her allegations. That's the point. When we get to the third factor, the third Steinhilber factor, we know that the New York Constitution requires that we consider the full context. And in the Boeheim case, the court said that the full context factor is often the key consideration. I think it is here too, Judge. It makes sense, this factor. It is a First Amendment sin to take things out of context and then sue people for it. Everything must be read in context. If you take something out of context, as the plaintiffs do in paragraph 30, you have no idea the environment in which those excerpted statements are being used. But we know now, Judge. We know now because of the Rule 56 record. We know that in context that January 2015 statement in its entirety actually makes a lot of sense. It actually is something that you can see a lawyer drafting, on one hand, to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300