5 ms·

>If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of def

>If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of defamation. This is strictly, legally false in the US. What you have described here does not satisfy the legal definition of defamation. It will get thrown out in court immediately. Here are the qualifiers for speech to be considered defamation: To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. and here's a relevant Supreme Court ruling that further restrains what can be considered defamation: In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

xondono 5y ago
> This is strictly, legally false in the US. GPs point is the only one that’s in question (covers your point 1), the rest should be straightforward to prove: 2- it appears on Facebook 3- they have appointed themselves as fact checkers and supposedly review the video. They have full access to it as does anyone. 4- the difference between this and other view counts on the platform should be enough.
- _jal 5y ago
  This seems to get awfully close to making disagreement actionable. If I claimed "xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect", should that be a cause of action?
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    if HN placed a [liar] badge next to their username, would that be a cause for action?
    - danShumway 5y ago
      No, not for the word "liar". Defamation laws in the US are narrow. Insulting someone, calling their character into question -- that's not defamation. Even technically factual statements can be shown to be not defamation if the context shows they were not meant to be taken literally. The word "liar" is very, very unlikely to ever rise to that standard. This is also why Stossel's claim is likely to fail. It is very hard to argue that the label "misleading" is a provably false statement of fact. IANAL, but if you're hoping for Stossel to win, you probably shouldn't hold your breath.
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        Ok, [lies]
        danShumway 5y ago
        No, still probably not. People call each other liars all of the time both online and in real life. You still need to connect this to some kind of intent, you still need to show that the instance of "you're lying" demonstrates a reckless disregard for truth. In American courts that is a very, very hard bar to clear -- particularly if the target is a public figure.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        it's not random "people" , it would be ycombinator, an entity with considerable weight which they would use against me. Second, stossel's job is to generally be credible, as he's a journalist. Doesn't the attack on his credibility by a major news medium (FB; regardless if it's disguised as third party for which we have no guarantees that they re impartial) carry more weight than if some random person shouted at him on the street? What if he got fired by his employer because they consider his reputation to be tarnished now? Why is it OK that people have no recourse against such action with social media companies? Anyway i understand the thing about the high bar of the US. But, if this comes to the point where facebook has to prove they did not have intent or that they were not stating false things, then stossel will still have "won", because from then on facebook will have to do that for all their future "labeling" of information (i think that "misleading" can very well taken to mean false. and the fact that it's not applied automatically by an algorithm makes it carry more intent)
- michaelhoffman 5y ago
  > 4- the difference between this and other view counts on the platform should be enough. If the only harm is view counts, it's not going to be a very big award.
pfraze 5y ago
It’s the demonstration of malice that will make this suit fail. You have to show evidence that the alleged defamer knew their statements are false. You might even need to prove intent. Unless they dig up a Facebook email saying “We know this isn’t true but let’s screw Stossel” it’s going to be a hard case to win.
- beebmam 5y ago
  Exactly correct, which is why virtually all defamation suits in the US don't ever make it to court. And it should be that way! Overly broad defamation laws greatly restrict freedom of speech.

xondono 5y ago

> This is strictly, legally false in the US. GPs point is the only one that’s in question (covers your point 1), the rest should be straightforward to prove: 2- it appears on Facebook 3- they have appointed themselves as fact checkers and supposedly review the video. They have full access to it as does anyone. 4- the difference between this and other view counts on the platform should be enough.

_jal 5y ago
This seems to get awfully close to making disagreement actionable. If I claimed "xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect", should that be a cause of action?
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  if HN placed a [liar] badge next to their username, would that be a cause for action?
  - danShumway 5y ago
    No, not for the word "liar". Defamation laws in the US are narrow. Insulting someone, calling their character into question -- that's not defamation. Even technically factual statements can be shown to be not defamation if the context shows they were not meant to be taken literally. The word "liar" is very, very unlikely to ever rise to that standard. This is also why Stossel's claim is likely to fail. It is very hard to argue that the label "misleading" is a provably false statement of fact. IANAL, but if you're hoping for Stossel to win, you probably shouldn't hold your breath.
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      Ok, [lies]
      - danShumway 5y ago
        No, still probably not. People call each other liars all of the time both online and in real life. You still need to connect this to some kind of intent, you still need to show that the instance of "you're lying" demonstrates a reckless disregard for truth. In American courts that is a very, very hard bar to clear -- particularly if the target is a public figure.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        it's not random "people" , it would be ycombinator, an entity with considerable weight which they would use against me. Second, stossel's job is to generally be credible, as he's a journalist. Doesn't the attack on his credibility by a major news medium (FB; regardless if it's disguised as third party for which we have no guarantees that they re impartial) carry more weight than if some random person shouted at him on the street? What if he got fired by his employer because they consider his reputation to be tarnished now? Why is it OK that people have no recourse against such action with social media companies? Anyway i understand the thing about the high bar of the US. But, if this comes to the point where facebook has to prove they did not have intent or that they were not stating false things, then stossel will still have "won", because from then on facebook will have to do that for all their future "labeling" of information (i think that "misleading" can very well taken to mean false. and the fact that it's not applied automatically by an algorithm makes it carry more intent)
michaelhoffman 5y ago
> 4- the difference between this and other view counts on the platform should be enough. If the only harm is view counts, it's not going to be a very big award.

pfraze 5y ago

It’s the demonstration of malice that will make this suit fail. You have to show evidence that the alleged defamer knew their statements are false. You might even need to prove intent. Unless they dig up a Facebook email saying “We know this isn’t true but let’s screw Stossel” it’s going to be a hard case to win.

beebmam 5y ago
Exactly correct, which is why virtually all defamation suits in the US don't ever make it to court. And it should be that way! Overly broad defamation laws greatly restrict freedom of speech.