3 ms·

> How exactly are you supposed to prove that an opinion was honestly held? You don't in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty

by IncRnd 4y ago

> How exactly are you supposed to prove that an opinion was honestly held? You don't in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. What needs to be shown is that the poster posted a statement that he knew was false. This can be shown in many ways. The poster didn't actually work there and had no basis for the statement. The poster went on to post somewhere else that his job is fantastic and the best he ever had. The poster had a series of excellent employee reviews and raises. etc.

bigwavedave 4y ago
> How exactly are you supposed to prove that an opinion was honestly held? >> You don't in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. What needs to be shown is that the poster posted a statement that he knew was false. Except this isn't about the US and the person you're responding to hasn't mentioned the US. This is about a lawsuit in New Zealand, where the burden of proof is not on the plaintiff, it's on the defendant to prove that they sincerely believed what they wrote. Hence the question.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > Except this isn't about the US and the person you're responding to hasn't mentioned the US. This is about a lawsuit in New Zealand, Except that the article is about the decision of a US Federal judge. There is no court case filed in NZ, and NZ law doesn't apply in the US.
  - bigwavedave 4y ago
    > Except that the article is about the decision of a US Federal judge. There is no court case filed in NZ, and NZ law doesn't apply in the US. No, the article is about a New Zealand company using the discovery process of a lawsuit in CA to get the names of people they will, by their own admission, sue in New Zealand court. From TFA: "In court, Zuru said it plans to file a defamation lawsuit in New Zealand against whoever posted these on Glassdoor, once their identities are revealed." So, no, the rules for burden of proof in the US have nothing to do with this.
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      > From TFA: "In court, Zuru said it plans to file a defamation lawsuit in New Zealand against whoever posted these on Glassdoor, once their identities are revealed." That quote clearly says there is no lawsuit in NZ. > So, no, the rules for burden of proof in the US have nothing to do with this. They do, since it should be clear they were not applied by Tse. That is the issue here, not an unfiled suit in another country, when the US federal courts have jurisdiction over the unmasking process.
      - bigwavedave 4y ago
        > They do, since it should be clear they were not applied by Tse. That is the issue here, not an unfiled suit in another country, when the US federal courts have jurisdiction over the unmasking process. I mean, you can cling to whatever fantasy you want, but it doesn't change the article: "Even though the ruling occurred in a U.S. federal court, Judge Tse said he made the ruling based on New Zealand law, as Zuru intends to sue in that jurisdiction. Therefore, the court's ruling was decided based on New Zealand law's definition of defamation, and not the U.S. legal definition." A US judge used New Zealand law to rule in favor of giving a New Zealand company data it plans on using to sue people for defamation in a New Zealand court. So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof. The article goes even further to say "In other words, Glassdoor shouldn't be ordered to turn over 'anonymous' user data in any case solely based on U.S. law." And yet, this is exactly how Tse ruled. So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        > I mean, you can cling to whatever fantasy you want, but it doesn't change the article: It's not a fantasy but a recognition that Tse was incorrect. The US SC has held that both online speech and anonymous speech are protected by the First Amendment. > The article goes even further to say "In other words, Glassdoor shouldn't be ordered to turn over 'anonymous' user data in any case solely based on U.S. law." And yet, this is exactly how Tse ruled. That's what I just said. Tse was incorrect. My comment clearly stated US and not NZ.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> You don’t in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. This isn’t about the US, and if it was in the US, it would be moot, because opinion is categorically protected, so you wouldn’t have to prove (on either side) whether it was honestly held. Outside of the US, it is not uncommon for libel standards to be quite different and for the defense to have the burden of proof in things like truth, honest belief, etc. (where they are elements of defenses) once the plaintiff has established that the statements were harmful, and published by the defendant.
rich_sasha 4y ago
Wouldn't that be a civil lawsuit, and therefore it's a bit different? UK at least i believe the bar is much lower. In criminal proceedings, you need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But in civil proceedings, the bar to clear is merely balance of probabilities. More so, in civil proceedings, it might be the defendant who has to prove innocence. For example if A and B sign a contract, B agrees to pay A under certain conditions, then doesn't pay claiming conditions were not met, and A sues B, the B has to prove payment isn't due as conditions weren't met. Give or take... Defamation is usually, AFAIK, a civil affair.
maximilianroos 4y ago
> A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. Libel is a civil matter. You're thinking of criminal cases where there is a notion of guilt & presumption of innocence.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  True. While presumption of innocence doesn't strictly apply, as a practical matter the plaintiff still is required to show evidence.

by IncRnd 4y ago

bigwavedave 4y ago

> How exactly are you supposed to prove that an opinion was honestly held? >> You don't in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. What needs to be shown is that the poster posted a statement that he knew was false. Except this isn't about the US and the person you're responding to hasn't mentioned the US. This is about a lawsuit in New Zealand, where the burden of proof is not on the plaintiff, it's on the defendant to prove that they sincerely believed what they wrote. Hence the question.

IncRnd 4y ago
> Except this isn't about the US and the person you're responding to hasn't mentioned the US. This is about a lawsuit in New Zealand, Except that the article is about the decision of a US Federal judge. There is no court case filed in NZ, and NZ law doesn't apply in the US.
- bigwavedave 4y ago
  > Except that the article is about the decision of a US Federal judge. There is no court case filed in NZ, and NZ law doesn't apply in the US. No, the article is about a New Zealand company using the discovery process of a lawsuit in CA to get the names of people they will, by their own admission, sue in New Zealand court. From TFA: "In court, Zuru said it plans to file a defamation lawsuit in New Zealand against whoever posted these on Glassdoor, once their identities are revealed." So, no, the rules for burden of proof in the US have nothing to do with this.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    > From TFA: "In court, Zuru said it plans to file a defamation lawsuit in New Zealand against whoever posted these on Glassdoor, once their identities are revealed." That quote clearly says there is no lawsuit in NZ. > So, no, the rules for burden of proof in the US have nothing to do with this. They do, since it should be clear they were not applied by Tse. That is the issue here, not an unfiled suit in another country, when the US federal courts have jurisdiction over the unmasking process.
    - bigwavedave 4y ago
      > They do, since it should be clear they were not applied by Tse. That is the issue here, not an unfiled suit in another country, when the US federal courts have jurisdiction over the unmasking process. I mean, you can cling to whatever fantasy you want, but it doesn't change the article: "Even though the ruling occurred in a U.S. federal court, Judge Tse said he made the ruling based on New Zealand law, as Zuru intends to sue in that jurisdiction. Therefore, the court's ruling was decided based on New Zealand law's definition of defamation, and not the U.S. legal definition." A US judge used New Zealand law to rule in favor of giving a New Zealand company data it plans on using to sue people for defamation in a New Zealand court. So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof. The article goes even further to say "In other words, Glassdoor shouldn't be ordered to turn over 'anonymous' user data in any case solely based on U.S. law." And yet, this is exactly how Tse ruled. So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof.
      - IncRnd 4y ago
        > I mean, you can cling to whatever fantasy you want, but it doesn't change the article: It's not a fantasy but a recognition that Tse was incorrect. The US SC has held that both online speech and anonymous speech are protected by the First Amendment. > The article goes even further to say "In other words, Glassdoor shouldn't be ordered to turn over 'anonymous' user data in any case solely based on U.S. law." And yet, this is exactly how Tse ruled. That's what I just said. Tse was incorrect. My comment clearly stated US and not NZ.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> You don’t in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. This isn’t about the US, and if it was in the US, it would be moot, because opinion is categorically protected, so you wouldn’t have to prove (on either side) whether it was honestly held. Outside of the US, it is not uncommon for libel standards to be quite different and for the defense to have the burden of proof in things like truth, honest belief, etc. (where they are elements of defenses) once the plaintiff has established that the statements were harmful, and published by the defendant.

rich_sasha 4y ago

Wouldn't that be a civil lawsuit, and therefore it's a bit different? UK at least i believe the bar is much lower. In criminal proceedings, you need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But in civil proceedings, the bar to clear is merely balance of probabilities. More so, in civil proceedings, it might be the defendant who has to prove innocence. For example if A and B sign a contract, B agrees to pay A under certain conditions, then doesn't pay claiming conditions were not met, and A sues B, the B has to prove payment isn't due as conditions weren't met. Give or take... Defamation is usually, AFAIK, a civil affair.

maximilianroos 4y ago

> A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. Libel is a civil matter. You're thinking of criminal cases where there is a notion of guilt & presumption of innocence.

IncRnd 4y ago
True. While presumption of innocence doesn't strictly apply, as a practical matter the plaintiff still is required to show evidence.