5 ms·
So here's what I found are generally the requirements for libel: False assertion of fact: There must be a false assertion of fact about a person; Communicatio
by dx87 7y ago
So here's what I found are generally the requirements for libel:
False assertion of fact: There must be a false assertion of fact about a person;
Communication: Such false statement was unprivileged and communicated or published to a third-party;
Fault: There was fault on the part of the plaintiff, amounting to at least negligence;
Damages: The statement or publication caused damage to the plaintiff or was ‘defamatory per se’ or ‘libelous per se’.
So point for point:
False assertion of fact: Sites wrote that RMS said the sex slaves were entirely willing to be sex slaves.
Communication: It was published online for everyone to see.
Fault: The sites didn't verify that he didn't actually say that, and were negligent in not doing any research beyond what was presented in the medium article.
Damages: RMS lost his job and it appears he's currently homeless.
How is what happened to him not considered libel?
- tptacek 7y agoKen White has covered this at length: you can't be sued for libel for quoting someone else's story. You have to be relating the veracity of the false facts yourself, based on your supposed knowledge of what happened. "I believe this story I read elsewhere" doesn't count.
- dx87 7y agoThanks, I hadn't heard of him. I'll ammend my top comment.
- deogeo 7y agoThat's a good point, but it's also not the entirety of what happened. See this Vice article https://archive.is/RVpdd https://archive.is/RVpdd : Selam Jie Gano, an MIT alum, posted on Medium about an email thread in which Stallman argued that the late Marvin Minsky—an AI pioneer accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Giuffre—had not actually assaulted anyone. Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. The second paragraph looks, to me, as if it's the author of the Vice article that's making the claim, not Selam Jie.
- jcranmer 7y agoNote that Stallman probably qualifies as a public figure for the purposes of defamation law. At that point, meeting the bar of defamation requires showing malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth, which is quite a high bar to meet, and I don't believe it is met here.
- kube-system 7y agoThe precise phrasing and context is of ultimate importance in these cases. There's a huge difference between a false direct quote and an editorialized interpretation of someone's words.