3 ms·

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)
      - danShumway 5y ago
        At the end of the day, if you don't believe me then you can watch the court case and see how it resolves. Stossel can sue Facebook, and if Facebook gets dismissed for 230 reasons he can also sue the fact checker directly. You don't have to believe me, you can wait and see how that works out. I'm just saying, I wouldn't hold my breath.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        its not that i dont believe u, i m just stating the things that seem odd to me from a common sense point of view [IANAL , obviously] I 'm not expecting that he will win, but maybe facebook will be forced to prove something which will mean they will have to prove it again in the future

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)
    - danShumway 5y ago
      At the end of the day, if you don't believe me then you can watch the court case and see how it resolves. Stossel can sue Facebook, and if Facebook gets dismissed for 230 reasons he can also sue the fact checker directly. You don't have to believe me, you can wait and see how that works out. I'm just saying, I wouldn't hold my breath.
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        its not that i dont believe u, i m just stating the things that seem odd to me from a common sense point of view [IANAL , obviously] I 'm not expecting that he will win, but maybe facebook will be forced to prove something which will mean they will have to prove it again in the future