on show time and in february of two thousand and sixteen not just because it was published in state in a way where it reached its maximum audience but because it was the st time that mr seely or had the ability to actually access theory that i he had somehow done something improper during the taking of his even if it's the largest in the universe then it wouldn't be he it wouldn't breeze to the level of the new or should have known no let me tell you right this standard is not whether he knew or should have known th articles traditional media it was covered on the internet it was promoted it was revealed by the critics the effect of the film not the characters the fact of the film but keep in mind on october it and whether anything in there was the family how would one be charged with knowing it or should where were respect for your honor you're focusing on whether someone knew or should have known when the fact of the matter is the test is whether or not it was on you can't put your head in the ground right but that's the knowledge standard the question is whether it's known it does does he have to i mean it's out there is a defamatory communication let's say it's it again your honor respectfully your asking whether he knew or should have known where the test is whether or not continue and defamation is a different animal the statue limitations are walk off the street and buy a ticket if he was concerned about what was in there as the artist then because the basis for simon's exoneration was his conduct he could have asked to see a to the internet he can't get it he sues and the case gets dismissed on the steps limitations grounds the court says it's not whether or not he knew or should have known it's whether or not it was  and even though the prisoner didn't have access could have gotten the publication had he wanted to it was still the dismissal was held and held on appeal think the evidence in the record is and it wasn't contested by plaintiff on appeal is that anybody can buy a ticket and attend these film festivals but i think the point is again there's a very narrow exception if you read the peel decision out of the st st district ok this district you'll see that it's very narrow was the publication hidden or concealed and i don't think there's any way that you can say under this wrongful conviction perspective because they didn't participate sale the things that i wanted to raise this is that the court can affect any ground appearing in the record and there are a host of st amendment grounds if you have a position and then or is there anything to suggest any increased problems of proof so far as the defendants are concerned it's based that you know the length of time and the discovery rule it i died who were unable to talk about it so the passage of time dins memories people pass away but one of the interests involved in the sure especial imitations is to give a publisher an opportunity to correct any of this statement it would never harm is fresh ok and so you've got a lack of diligence by a person who claims to be like an internationally famous investigator right but apparently he's got his head in the ground even though you've got arm the state's attorney condemning his conduct a k several there's there's clearly a lack of diligence and th runs counter to the interests that the sure sets limitations on a defamation claim it's designed to protect say oh there's both the late and prejudiced both in terms of frustrating st amendment protections as well well i've lost my train of thought there really look at it it's to your benefit i think but that's not why the piece was dismissed true right true and if we didn't if we agreed with your notion that you're getting into about the privilege now we're going into the a movie which the complaint was based on and so i think the clear can look to that as as if it could a news article a book wherever and say ok you you would agree that we in the state court look at things differently than ceral i mean look in terms of opinion you've got people who are attorneys advocates police officers and people who want to get out of jail who are saying here are the facts right and the actually if you look if you look at the cases right if it's clear for example all story sign and gives his you know position on the right he thinks he was framed right everybody knows that he's doing that because that's his position that's what his lawyer said right arm that's that classic situation that that was addressed in brennan that says you know things that really nearly would be fact statements are deemed to be opinion because of the context of which in which there is said this is like a debate over you know there's never going to be an answer as to who committed these murders rape with the other but you are going to have the debate over  the record is a fair abridged break and to compare to figure out whether it's a fair summary of the underlying proceedings you have to compare that just in staying of the report i e the film with the just in criminal said he barged into silence apartment impersonating an officer brandishing a gun and several vets very negative stuff and there's nothing in the film that is more negative than that settle the film which swept happened in the court proceedings and had missed alvarez's press conference is privileged under the fair report privilege thank you i think you stating his own advocacy of his positions thanks thanks very much and they say they use some derogatory language to discuss mr crawford but that only goes to prove that they knew all about it at welcome let me just say this are just as perverted is the document that we would look to see whether the statements were the family whether they derived from reading list cities wouldn't met right to correct that the fact of the matter is  cook county which mr judge lawyer determined then i think that that should be affirm church thank you thank you the end of the day we are stuck with two victims who will never receive justice those two individuals that were swaying in the case of it to keep order and all document that is correct so the documentary simply shall accept of the televised press conference but it was a repeat she was not interviewed to that speech again it was just a repeat of the comments that she made on accessible only think that's one way we can look at it mr seely again has a new ability to google and he couldn't get on line he couldn't remember the film he couldn't do anything once aired in new york and what about the argument that he was a pretty of from prison i was generally aware through news articles that avarice was critical of northwesterners involvement in the border exaggeration but never saw or read any reporting alvarez's statement specific to my