3 ms·

The truth is an absolute defense against libel, but what happens when that stops being true?

• cafard 5y ago
  The parent comment referred to Sullivan v. NY Times, which ruled that a public figure (and I suppose companies count as such) have to prove not just factual error, but actual malice.
  • asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Seems like refusing to take down known inaccurate articles at is at least suggestive of actual malice.
    • james_in_the_uk 5y ago
      That appears to be Ubiquity's argument, but we've only got one side at the moment, and to my reading (uneducated as to US defamation law) it's far from proven.
      • asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Well yes you wouldn't expect anything to be proven at this point. There is only a complaint. We are discussing the reasonableness/plausibility of the allegation. All I'm saying is that to me it seems plausible.
    • tga_d 5y ago
      Again, "actual malice" doesn't mean "acting maliciously" in the colloquial sense. It's a legal term of art from the aforementioned NYT v. Sullivan case and is explicitly defined as "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Publications leave up articles they know to contain falsehoods (that were believed to be true at the time they were written) all the time. Unless libel (and therefore actual malice) is shown, I don't know of any precedent that would imply an obligation to issue a retraction.