3 ms·

"sloppily doxxing" is not the standard for defamation in the US. In many cases, the standard amounts to "actual malice", which means pretty much that she'd have

"sloppily doxxing" is not the standard for defamation in the US. In many cases, the standard amounts to "actual malice", which means pretty much that she'd have the prove the defendants KNEW she did not write said screed. Have you considered that if the standard for defamation were actually as you hope it is/should be, she'd get about a microsecond to enjoy her victory over Nieman Lab before being crushed by Seth Rich's family over her rumormongering in that case?

nostromo 5y ago
That's not the standard, which is why the judge allowed it to move forward. It's literally mentioned in the article. Being sloppy is indeed enough to be sued. If I started telling people "microtherion is a Nazi" - you could sue me without proving I knew you are not a Nazi.
- microtherion 5y ago
  > the judge allowed it to move forward … on a Motion to Dismiss, which means literally "if we take everything the plaintiff says as the gospel truth, and dismiss anything the defendant says, would the plaintiff have a case?" > It's literally mentioned in the article. The judge allowed some of the numerous claims to proceed to the next trial stage, while dismissing others outright. If you follow the article's link to the ruling, you will find that actual malice is literally the standard applied to many of the counts, which were indeed dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss stage: "mere negligence or deviation from professional standards is insufficient to allege actual malice". Whether that standard applies to the libel charge depends on whether the plaintiff is a public figure, which apparently in that state is never decided in the Motion to Dismiss stage. However, the next step is generally a Motion for Summary Judgment, and odds are good that she will be found a (Limited, at least) public figure, at which point the Libel, Defamation, Emotional Distress, and Tortious Interference counts are history. > you could sue me Anyone could sue anyone for anything. Would I win? I doubt it.

nostromo 5y ago

That's not the standard, which is why the judge allowed it to move forward. It's literally mentioned in the article. Being sloppy is indeed enough to be sued. If I started telling people "microtherion is a Nazi" - you could sue me without proving I knew you are not a Nazi.

microtherion 5y ago
> the judge allowed it to move forward … on a Motion to Dismiss, which means literally "if we take everything the plaintiff says as the gospel truth, and dismiss anything the defendant says, would the plaintiff have a case?" > It's literally mentioned in the article. The judge allowed some of the numerous claims to proceed to the next trial stage, while dismissing others outright. If you follow the article's link to the ruling, you will find that actual malice is literally the standard applied to many of the counts, which were indeed dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss stage: "mere negligence or deviation from professional standards is insufficient to allege actual malice". Whether that standard applies to the libel charge depends on whether the plaintiff is a public figure, which apparently in that state is never decided in the Motion to Dismiss stage. However, the next step is generally a Motion for Summary Judgment, and odds are good that she will be found a (Limited, at least) public figure, at which point the Libel, Defamation, Emotional Distress, and Tortious Interference counts are history. > you could sue me Anyone could sue anyone for anything. Would I win? I doubt it.