3 ms·
> There's a difference between satire and making false claims about a product with the intention of tarnishing it and the company that produces it. You need to
by Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
> There's a difference between satire and making false claims about a product with the intention of tarnishing it and the company that produces it.
You need to be careful about the wording here. I believe that there is a difference under UK libel law between making false claims and making false claims with an intention to tarnish the company. The second attributes malice which removes certain possible defences.
I don't think there is any suggest here that the TG were intending to tarnish the product. I think they were making a (validish) point about electric cars and maybe getting a cheap laugh - legally that may be a different thing.
- redthrowaway 16y agoRight, but given Clarkson's well-known antipathy towards anything green, Tesla probably could argue in court that the libel (if there was any) was intentional. It might not be true, but it would be easier to show for Clarkson than for arbitrary journalist X.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Tyrannosaurs 16y agoThe problem with that is if you choose to argue in court that it's malicious and lose, you've actually libelled the other party (accusing them of malice) opening yourself up to a counter suit. Got to love the law...
- caf 16y agoThe accusation that a script was sighted containing both the pushing-into-hangar scene and the "It's just doesn't work in the real world" conclusion before the cars had even been driven certainly goes to this point.