4 ms·

I don't think this lawsuit will go anywhere. The lawsuit is a defamation lawsuit, which is notoriously difficult to prove, as you have to prove that the stateme

I don't think this lawsuit will go anywhere. The lawsuit is a defamation lawsuit, which is notoriously difficult to prove, as you have to prove that the statements were knowingly false (not made as an opinion) and made with purpose to damage you. In this case, from what I can see, the claims were largely true. You can't successfully sue for defamation of statements that are just true. Then, even if there are claims that aren't true, you have to prove the untrue statement wasn't an opinion and that it was made with the intent to say an untrue thing as if were fact in order to damage you. EDIT: A poster below pointed out that you to make claims statements that you knew were false; there is also standing if you didn't know they were false but you didn't confirm if they were true in a manner deemed as "reckless" by the court. I believe this is a lesser burden than I described above, but still a very high bar.

evgen 5y ago
It is interesting how much conservatives suddenly care about making sure that their speech should suffer no consequences after spending decades oppressing anyone who dares step out of line with similar loss of job, rank, and income. In the 50s you would be attacked for any deviation from anti-communist orthodoxy, in the 60s for deviation from racial orthodoxy, and in the 80s for daring to question sexual orthodoxy. I would probably care more about their claims and complaints if they were not so transparent about the fact that their real complaint is that people who they look down on are now in a position to judge and ostracize them.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  You don't have to go back to the 50s-80s. Colin Kaepernick's situation reveals the hypocrisy, just a couple years ago.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  It goes both ways. While I agree that conservatives appear to be hypocritical, I also think Democrats are equally as guilty. I really see both parties as two sides of the same coin.
joreilly 5y ago
From the article: > In her suit, Viola acknowledged writing most of the posts. But she denied being behind the anti-Muslim screed. That was critical to Sorokin’s decision to allow the libel and defamation part of Viola’s suit to proceed. The former professor “has plausibly alleged that Benton may have been negligent in his failure to verify that she was the author,” the judge wrote. If she can prove that it wasn't her/Benton can't prove that it was her (I'm not familiar with the legal system, so I don't know which it would be), then there would indeed be an untrue statement. As for damage; why does anyone dredge up another's darker side, if not to damage them in some way? I can't think of another motive for doing so.
- intrasight 5y ago
  She was wronged and harmed by his actions. This should prove to be an interesting case.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  No, you have to prove that it was stated with intent of spreading false information about the person who was wronged. A reporter who genuinely believed that Viola made those statements can't be judged as committing defamation.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    So if I genuinely think you murdered a baby I can publish articles saying you did, with no legal consequence?
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      yes, if you can prove that you genuinely believe it.
      - spoonjim 5y ago
        In the US that standard is only applied to public figures. For a private figure, the speaker can commit defamation if they do not exert reasonable care to ensure that the statement is true.
dillondoyle 5y ago
Also Benton didn't report this as a reporter on his publication. it was his personal twitter. To me the more interesting problem is him using his workpace Discuss mod privileges to first ID her, and then posting to his personal twitter - which seems like it's not an official org piece of reporting. At least that's what I'm reading I think - it very well could have been possible for him to ID her without that admin info? So maybe Benton is in violation of his work's policy. I agree though even if it wasn't true wouldn't it have to be malicious intent to cause harm?
encryptluks2 5y ago
I agree, also federal lawsuits can be dismissed at anytime for lack of jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction, the amount of damages has to exceed $75,000. I don't have time to read the entire docket but that is going to be really difficult to prove.

evgen 5y ago

It is interesting how much conservatives suddenly care about making sure that their speech should suffer no consequences after spending decades oppressing anyone who dares step out of line with similar loss of job, rank, and income. In the 50s you would be attacked for any deviation from anti-communist orthodoxy, in the 60s for deviation from racial orthodoxy, and in the 80s for daring to question sexual orthodoxy. I would probably care more about their claims and complaints if they were not so transparent about the fact that their real complaint is that people who they look down on are now in a position to judge and ostracize them.

ceejayoz 5y ago
You don't have to go back to the 50s-80s. Colin Kaepernick's situation reveals the hypocrisy, just a couple years ago.
encryptluks2 5y ago
It goes both ways. While I agree that conservatives appear to be hypocritical, I also think Democrats are equally as guilty. I really see both parties as two sides of the same coin.

joreilly 5y ago

From the article: > In her suit, Viola acknowledged writing most of the posts. But she denied being behind the anti-Muslim screed. That was critical to Sorokin’s decision to allow the libel and defamation part of Viola’s suit to proceed. The former professor “has plausibly alleged that Benton may have been negligent in his failure to verify that she was the author,” the judge wrote. If she can prove that it wasn't her/Benton can't prove that it was her (I'm not familiar with the legal system, so I don't know which it would be), then there would indeed be an untrue statement. As for damage; why does anyone dredge up another's darker side, if not to damage them in some way? I can't think of another motive for doing so.

intrasight 5y ago
She was wronged and harmed by his actions. This should prove to be an interesting case.
KittenInABox 5y ago
No, you have to prove that it was stated with intent of spreading false information about the person who was wronged. A reporter who genuinely believed that Viola made those statements can't be judged as committing defamation.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  So if I genuinely think you murdered a baby I can publish articles saying you did, with no legal consequence?
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    yes, if you can prove that you genuinely believe it.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      In the US that standard is only applied to public figures. For a private figure, the speaker can commit defamation if they do not exert reasonable care to ensure that the statement is true.

dillondoyle 5y ago

Also Benton didn't report this as a reporter on his publication. it was his personal twitter. To me the more interesting problem is him using his workpace Discuss mod privileges to first ID her, and then posting to his personal twitter - which seems like it's not an official org piece of reporting. At least that's what I'm reading I think - it very well could have been possible for him to ID her without that admin info? So maybe Benton is in violation of his work's policy. I agree though even if it wasn't true wouldn't it have to be malicious intent to cause harm?

encryptluks2 5y ago

I agree, also federal lawsuits can be dismissed at anytime for lack of jurisdiction. For diversity jurisdiction, the amount of damages has to exceed $75,000. I don't have time to read the entire docket but that is going to be really difficult to prove.