Inside the courtroom: two sharply different narratives
Townsend’s account. After days of contentious hearings, Townsend told RadarOnline the proceeding was “a very bizarre hearing,” claiming the judge said she “needed to be taught a lesson”—a characterization she argues contradicts the preventative purpose of restraining-order statutes. She further alleged the court “disregarded Lopez’s in-court outburst,” asserting he yelled on the stand and called her “crazy,” “unhinged,” and a “stalker.” Townsend says she will appeal. Radar Online
Lopez’s position. Lopez’s legal filings describe the Father’s Day service episode and subsequent social-media posting as harassment that endangered his young children by exposing their home location to a large online audience. His team simultaneously frames his Instagram commentary about the old video as constitutionally protected opinion, not a provably false assertion of fact.
The defamation claim: opinion vs. fact
Defamation cases often hinge on whether statements are understood by a reasonable reader as factual assertions that can be proven true or false—or instead as hyperbolic opinion. Lopez’s response, according to the answer filed, emphasizes First Amendment protections and argues his commentary should be read as opinion. That argument, if accepted, can be a potent early defense, particularly when the speech concerns a public controversy already widely discussed online and in the press.
