4 ms·

No, the US gets this right, and this case would be thrown out promptly were it in American jurisdiction (well, presumably - I don't know the extent of the "trol

No, the US gets this right, and this case would be thrown out promptly were it in American jurisdiction (well, presumably - I don't know the extent of the "trolling" since the article is scant on detail, but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have brought it to light to support their case). There's a much higher bar to establish defamation against Public Figures in the US -- as there should be. They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be trolled. That's part of the deal of being famous - you have haters. I don't think anyone should have to pay out because they trolled a famous person on Twitter.

Barrin92 5y ago
I'm not really sure why being famous is supposed to diminish your rights in regards to defamation, or really in regards to anything. If someone spreads falsehoods against another person in a way that damages their reputation they ought to have legal means at their disposal to set that straight. I don't really see why the US gets this right at all, it's just part of Americas culture where lies and truth are treated as equal and as a result integrity has completely vanished from public discourse. Very visible in how all politicians are treated as 'being the same', which is the logical consequence of this atmosphere of defamation which trolls abuse with impunity. If you can lie without repercussion about everyone, the public cannot distinguish reality from fiction.
- mcguire 5y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation For defamation, you need four things: a false statement of fact made to a third party causing actual harm, that demonstrates at least negligence. For public figures, the "at least negligence" rises to "actual malice"; I believe the intention is to prevent public figures from abusing defamation suits. Note that "lying", saying something that you know to be false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it is false, is pretty much the definition of "actual malice" in this case. You cannot lie without repercussion.
dangerface 5y ago
> They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be trolled. Citation needed I don't think any one on youtube or twitch has the resources or interest in dealing with lies being spread about them. I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars at the expense of every one else. I can't think of any legitimate reason that popular people should be subject to a different set of laws from the rest of us, that seems deeply biased and un fair.
- xxpor 5y ago
  >I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars and the expense of every one else. You're advocating for the government to become the arbitrator of true and fiction for private speech. Seems like an absolutely terrible idea to me.
  - krapp 5y ago
    Every government in existence, including that of the United States, arbitrates speech and fact. That's why perjury and false advertising are illegal, for instance.
    - mullen 5y ago
      Your examples are not relative to the discussion. Perjury is a crime because people have to tell the truth in the court system. The whole justice system and thus, society, would break down if anyone could say whatever they wanted in a court of law without being punished. False Advertising is a crime because it is a commercial activity with the intent to commit fraud and not an individual saying their opinions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Steko 5y ago
> but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have brought it to light to support their case Or maybe they assume that repeating the "false and defamatory allegations" wouldn't be a good idea?

Barrin92 5y ago

I'm not really sure why being famous is supposed to diminish your rights in regards to defamation, or really in regards to anything. If someone spreads falsehoods against another person in a way that damages their reputation they ought to have legal means at their disposal to set that straight. I don't really see why the US gets this right at all, it's just part of Americas culture where lies and truth are treated as equal and as a result integrity has completely vanished from public discourse. Very visible in how all politicians are treated as 'being the same', which is the logical consequence of this atmosphere of defamation which trolls abuse with impunity. If you can lie without repercussion about everyone, the public cannot distinguish reality from fiction.

mcguire 5y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation For defamation, you need four things: a false statement of fact made to a third party causing actual harm, that demonstrates at least negligence. For public figures, the "at least negligence" rises to "actual malice"; I believe the intention is to prevent public figures from abusing defamation suits. Note that "lying", saying something that you know to be false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it is false, is pretty much the definition of "actual malice" in this case. You cannot lie without repercussion.

dangerface 5y ago

> They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be trolled. Citation needed I don't think any one on youtube or twitch has the resources or interest in dealing with lies being spread about them. I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars at the expense of every one else. I can't think of any legitimate reason that popular people should be subject to a different set of laws from the rest of us, that seems deeply biased and un fair.

xxpor 5y ago
>I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars and the expense of every one else. You're advocating for the government to become the arbitrator of true and fiction for private speech. Seems like an absolutely terrible idea to me.
- krapp 5y ago
  Every government in existence, including that of the United States, arbitrates speech and fact. That's why perjury and false advertising are illegal, for instance.
  - mullen 5y ago
    Your examples are not relative to the discussion. Perjury is a crime because people have to tell the truth in the court system. The whole justice system and thus, society, would break down if anyone could say whatever they wanted in a court of law without being punished. False Advertising is a crime because it is a commercial activity with the intent to commit fraud and not an individual saying their opinions.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Steko 5y ago

> but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have brought it to light to support their case Or maybe they assume that repeating the "false and defamatory allegations" wouldn't be a good idea?