4 ms·
Pretty shocking that for all the discussion of this news article, yours is the only comment that looked into the actual "defamatory claims", and it seems the on
by jeremysalwen 5y ago
Pretty shocking that for all the discussion of this news article, yours is the only comment that looked into the actual "defamatory claims", and it seems the only one we have access to... was factually true (but heavily editorialized). Incredible how the narrative can get swayed so easily on the basis of no evidence, or in contradiction to the evidence.
- perihelions 5y agoMore essentially (IMHO), it's not a claim of fact that originates with the speaker. It's commentary on a publicly disclosed set of facts ("contents of the BBC show that aired on Feburary 3"), that both writer and readers are familiar with. In the US at least, it's categorically impossible for this fact pattern to be defamatory -- regardless if the claims are true or false. You can't tortiously mislead an intelligent person by discussing a TV program *that you've both watched*.