3 ms·

I feel like this isn't quite defamation either (especially since there was later a retraction of sorts), but calling someone a pedophile is in a distinct class

I feel like this isn't quite defamation either (especially since there was later a retraction of sorts), but calling someone a pedophile is in a distinct class from calling someone a douchebag. In one case the insult is an inanimate object that is always an insult, and can't be reasonably taken seriously. In the other there's an implication of extreme wrongdoing where the line between insult and false accusation is blurry. Edit: see the comment about per se defamation in another thread, as I wasn't aware of that legal distinction but it's the same idea. I don't believe "douchebag" meets that definition, but pedo guy is border-line at best.

joecool1029 7y ago
> I feel like this isn't quite defamation either He made a specific claim misrepresenting the guy. A claim in which he could request relief (for instance: employers not hiring him because he was rumored to be a pedo) He didn't say 'cave guy looks like a pedo', he literally called him a 'pedo guy' which most people would think 'oh, maybe this is a person with a history of abusing children'. In the least if it makes a someone reading that consider that the plaintiff is actually a pedo or at least has to stop to research it.... that seems fairly defamatory.