6 ms·

Does this statement risk a tortious interference with business relationship suit? You have published a statement that could reasonably interpreted as Jason Cal

Does this statement risk a tortious interference with business relationship suit? You have published a statement that could reasonably interpreted as Jason Calacanis mistreats founders by bullying them, changing offers, sharing their confidential info and other things. That intentionally obstructs Mr. Calcanis from entering into valuable business relationships with startup company founders. It seems very risky unless you have at hand specific evidence that Mr. Calacanis had done each of "bullying them", "changing offers," and "sharing their confidential info." Of course I totally believe you and wouldn't be keen to do business with him. But, that's exactly the point.

markdown 11y ago
Truth is an absolute defence for libel.
- throwaway_xx9 11y ago
  > Truth is an absolute defence for libel. In the USA. In the UK, the opposite.
  - 15155 11y ago
    Does the UK have any jurisdictional capacity over YC?
  - ddlatham 11y ago
    Nope. In the UK truth is still a defense, but the difference is that the burden of proving truth is on the defendant rather than the plaintiff (like in the USA).
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The UK has different legal systems for Scotland and England, so there isn't a "UK Libel law". English defamation law has several defences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). > An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. > A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. > Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
apsec112 11y ago
No, sama is not obligated to censor his honest opinions about random people he doesn't like. The First Amendment (and in some states, SLAPP statutes) protect him from legal threats of censorship. Interference with business relationships is only a thing if (among other conditions) the two parties already have some type of agreement. It does not apply to investors approaching founders they don't even know yet. Slander/libel is only a thing if (among other conditions) the statement is of fact ("Bob is an asshole" etc. are considered opinion and not fact), the statement is false, and the author knows it is false and publishes it anyway. Here's what happens when dumb lawyers try to censor negative opinions with threats: https://popehat.com/2013/06/25/criticize-your-dentist-thats-a-jailin/ https://popehat.com/2013/06/25/criticize-your-dentist-thats-...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jasonmcalacanis 11y ago
  The issue here is that the way Sam originally wrote his response, he was clearly saying I leaked information and changed a deal on a startup -- two things I've never, ever done. There really is no upside to leaking information on a startup if you're an investor (all these leaks come from employees typically). On changing a deal, I'm really blunt about what I think a startup is worth... I just tell folks "I would value the company at X, if you can get 3X I suggest you go for it!" In fact, my candidness on this issue has kind of gotten me into this mess with YC to begin with (they haven't appreciated me saying stuff like "only an idiot would do an uncapped note" and "paying a $15m cap to a company with six weeks of data is just dumb." ).
15155 11y ago
The applicable tort would be libel, not tortious interference. No reasonable person, however, would believe that this correspondence is libelous. Tortious interference requires: - Prior knowledge of a specific business relationship - Intent to damage that specific business relationship - Actual damage of the known, specific business relationship
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315443 and marked it off-topic.
jasonmcalacanis 11y ago
Sam changed his original statement. I forgive him for saying I did those things and believe it wasn't his intent to damage my reputation (which he is doing by banning me from YC -- it's a harsh move that I'm having to do a lot of reputation damage prevention on).

markdown 11y ago

Truth is an absolute defence for libel.

throwaway_xx9 11y ago
> Truth is an absolute defence for libel. In the USA. In the UK, the opposite.
- 15155 11y ago
  Does the UK have any jurisdictional capacity over YC?
- ddlatham 11y ago
  Nope. In the UK truth is still a defense, but the difference is that the burden of proving truth is on the defendant rather than the plaintiff (like in the USA).
- DanBC 11y ago
  The UK has different legal systems for Scotland and England, so there isn't a "UK Libel law". English defamation law has several defences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). > An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. > A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. > Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

apsec112 11y ago

No, sama is not obligated to censor his honest opinions about random people he doesn't like. The First Amendment (and in some states, SLAPP statutes) protect him from legal threats of censorship. Interference with business relationships is only a thing if (among other conditions) the two parties already have some type of agreement. It does not apply to investors approaching founders they don't even know yet. Slander/libel is only a thing if (among other conditions) the statement is of fact ("Bob is an asshole" etc. are considered opinion and not fact), the statement is false, and the author knows it is false and publishes it anyway. Here's what happens when dumb lawyers try to censor negative opinions with threats: https://popehat.com/2013/06/25/criticize-your-dentist-thats-a-jailin/ https://popehat.com/2013/06/25/criticize-your-dentist-thats-...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jasonmcalacanis 11y ago
The issue here is that the way Sam originally wrote his response, he was clearly saying I leaked information and changed a deal on a startup -- two things I've never, ever done. There really is no upside to leaking information on a startup if you're an investor (all these leaks come from employees typically). On changing a deal, I'm really blunt about what I think a startup is worth... I just tell folks "I would value the company at X, if you can get 3X I suggest you go for it!" In fact, my candidness on this issue has kind of gotten me into this mess with YC to begin with (they haven't appreciated me saying stuff like "only an idiot would do an uncapped note" and "paying a $15m cap to a company with six weeks of data is just dumb." ).

15155 11y ago

The applicable tort would be libel, not tortious interference. No reasonable person, however, would believe that this correspondence is libelous. Tortious interference requires: - Prior knowledge of a specific business relationship - Intent to damage that specific business relationship - Actual damage of the known, specific business relationship

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11315443 and marked it off-topic.

jasonmcalacanis 11y ago

Sam changed his original statement. I forgive him for saying I did those things and believe it wasn't his intent to damage my reputation (which he is doing by banning me from YC -- it's a harsh move that I'm having to do a lot of reputation damage prevention on).