4 ms·

The law uses intention and sincerity all the time. The easiest way to prove it in this case would be to subpoena statements made about the company in private,

The law uses intention and sincerity all the time. The easiest way to prove it in this case would be to subpoena statements made about the company in private, then compare them to the publicly stated opinion to see if there was a difference. If, for example, the person was a stakeholder in a competitive company and documented that they were trying to hurt the company, then it obviously wouldn’t be an honest opinion. I’m guess that’s what the New Zealand law is trying to make illegal. (Although in the US that would be legal as long as your statements were an opinion that someone could possibly hold (i.e. not factual lies).)

mywittyname 4y ago
> If, for example, the person was a stakeholder in a competitive company and documented that they were trying to hurt the company, then it obviously wouldn’t be an honest opinion. An engineer at Ford could say that they think the new Silverado is a POS. It could be their honest opinion AND could be said for the purposes of damaging Chevy. Someone can be biased and still honest. Even if you found evidence they made the opposite claim in another forum, they can still argue that their honest opinion changed over time.
feoren 4y ago
> If, for example, the person was a stakeholder in a competitive company and documented that they were trying to hurt the company, then it obviously wouldn’t be an honest opinion. You've offered an example of evidence against it being an "honestly-held opinion". You're still thinking of it as being the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove that the opinion was not honestly-held. That's not the problem here! The plaintiff doesn't need any smoking gun like that. The defendant has to show that it was honestly-held. It doesn't sound like the plaintiff needs any evidence one way or another; if the defendant can't come up with affirmative evidence that it was honestly-held, they're liable. It sounds like an awful system.

mywittyname 4y ago

> If, for example, the person was a stakeholder in a competitive company and documented that they were trying to hurt the company, then it obviously wouldn’t be an honest opinion. An engineer at Ford could say that they think the new Silverado is a POS. It could be their honest opinion AND could be said for the purposes of damaging Chevy. Someone can be biased and still honest. Even if you found evidence they made the opposite claim in another forum, they can still argue that their honest opinion changed over time.

feoren 4y ago

> If, for example, the person was a stakeholder in a competitive company and documented that they were trying to hurt the company, then it obviously wouldn’t be an honest opinion. You've offered an example of evidence against it being an "honestly-held opinion". You're still thinking of it as being the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove that the opinion was not honestly-held. That's not the problem here! The plaintiff doesn't need any smoking gun like that. The defendant has to show that it was honestly-held. It doesn't sound like the plaintiff needs any evidence one way or another; if the defendant can't come up with affirmative evidence that it was honestly-held, they're liable. It sounds like an awful system.