3 ms·

Not really. If he turned out to be an actual pedo, that would’ve been a pretty good argument to bring up in court. So it was worth looking into.

• davesque 7y ago
  So then I can call someone a "pedo", hire a personal investigator to prove that fact specifically, and then turn around and claim I didn't literally mean they were a pedophile?
  • geoelectric 7y ago
    If you anticipate that their argument is that you were actually calling them one, then yes, it's the sensible thing to do to prepare yourself. There are only a few defenses to that as an element: "No I didn't," "So what, nobody would actually believe an obvious insult," (that's the one that won) and "It's true." The latter automatically wins the suit if proven, so it makes sense to probe for it among the others. If I recall from reading a memo/recap of the session yesterday, that exact argument came up. I'm still shocked he won, mind you. My understanding was that he googled the Thai area in question and read its reputation before making the statement, which sure makes it look like he meant it at face value.
  • threatofrain 7y ago
    Defamation considers both your frame of mind and the objectivity of your statements. It's not surprising that the law protects factual statements.
  • egdod 7y ago
    That’s literally exactly what happened here. So... maybe?