00:07:23.220This is how she got her millions of viewers and followers.
00:07:26.780When you write, our client transitioned out of adult content industry and is now known as a public follower of the Christian faith
00:07:34.600and publishes content that is led by Christian values and morals.
00:07:38.720Understand that the internet is widely mocking her for continuing to make sexualized content as you see below.
00:07:46.900You use the term privacy rights, but Nala is a very public figure.
00:07:51.000Your letter does not claim that I have published any private information about her.
00:07:55.080Instead, Nala just seems to be unhappy about my criticism.
00:07:58.440Ignoring the jurisdictional issues for now, defamation is based on state law.
00:08:03.860Generally, statements of opinion cannot be defamation.
00:08:07.300In addition, truthful statements cannot be defamatory.
00:08:10.480Since Nala is a public figure, you would have to show actual malice.
00:08:14.140Finally, you would need to show damages, a direct monetary loss from any mean tweet.
00:08:19.700There is also the question of whether Nala, an infamous porn star, is defamation proof that her reputation is so bad that she cannot claim it by getting worse from anything I've said.
00:08:31.300But in the spirit of cooperation, I will seriously consider removing any content you find objectionable.