5 ms·

There has been plenty of those accusations like waterboarding his ex-wife and usually no smoke without a fire is pretty good thumb-rule about these things.

Lucasoato 4y ago
> usually no smoke without a fire is pretty good thumb-rule about these things No, that's exactly the reason why trial by Twitter shouldn't be done, you don't know what actually happened.
- addicted 4y ago
  This isn’t trial by Twitter. This is actual human beings approaching legitimate newspapers with fact checking departments and legal departments and risks of defamation lawsuits, providing their stories and attaching their names to it. Everyone of the entities involved are at risk of being sued for defamation if they are lying in this situation. The fact that people can’t tell the difference between Twitter BS and actual news claims is a true indictment of modern society.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
    Some might see it as a true indictment of modern journalism, more concerned with generating clicks than reporting news. Also the bar for defamation is extremely high, spreading lies is not enough to qualify.
  - ignaloidas 4y ago
    Defamation is a hard thing to prove. For one, the one who publishes must know that something isn't true. Newspapers have zero risk of that when they quote somebody's statement.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    >fact checking departments The age of clickbait has reduced these to a farce. I've seen fact-checks that were blatantly false. There are no reputable papers anymore.
cardanome 4y ago
If one wanted to wage a dirt campaign against him the accusations would look exactly like they do now. He is obviously a controversial figure. Might have rustled the wrong feathers. Many accusation are also very nebulous, hard to verify and avoiding anything concrete that could get the person making them get sued for defamation. Of course, he also could just be an asshole and abuser. We simply can't know.
- corncheese 4y ago
  Exactly! Also the media should be sharing more of this. Than continue to push out stories that are already resolved. The brother Lucas ended up paying for all the lawyer fees after Dan won the case Interesting how the media continues to bring up the lawsuit but never share the real story and the outcome to the lawsuit. I guess it is more profitable to spread lies. Here is one article sharing the details after the lawsuit with Dan and his brother. People should do more research before blasting opinions. It is terrible what the US is allowed to share and spread buyer to gain more article clicks! https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-suit-filed-brother-gravity-payments-co-owner/ https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-sui...
- listenallyall 4y ago
  Just curious if you have an opinion regarding Deshaun Watson or his accusers. For context, he is a high-profile quarterback who earlier today was suspended by the NFL, based on a series of mostly anonymous accusations of sexual misconduct.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    Do you?
  - cardanome 4y ago
    I don't. Never heard of that person before, sorry.
kristiandupont 4y ago
The very concept of slander could be defined as "smoke without fire". Surely you agree that slander exists, whether or not it's the case in this particular situation?
rowanG077 4y ago
No that's the worst rule of thumb. That's how you end up with lynch mobs, witch burning etc.

Lucasoato 4y ago

> usually no smoke without a fire is pretty good thumb-rule about these things No, that's exactly the reason why trial by Twitter shouldn't be done, you don't know what actually happened.

addicted 4y ago
This isn’t trial by Twitter. This is actual human beings approaching legitimate newspapers with fact checking departments and legal departments and risks of defamation lawsuits, providing their stories and attaching their names to it. Everyone of the entities involved are at risk of being sued for defamation if they are lying in this situation. The fact that people can’t tell the difference between Twitter BS and actual news claims is a true indictment of modern society.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  Some might see it as a true indictment of modern journalism, more concerned with generating clicks than reporting news. Also the bar for defamation is extremely high, spreading lies is not enough to qualify.
- ignaloidas 4y ago
  Defamation is a hard thing to prove. For one, the one who publishes must know that something isn't true. Newspapers have zero risk of that when they quote somebody's statement.
- boppo1 4y ago
  >fact checking departments The age of clickbait has reduced these to a farce. I've seen fact-checks that were blatantly false. There are no reputable papers anymore.

cardanome 4y ago

If one wanted to wage a dirt campaign against him the accusations would look exactly like they do now. He is obviously a controversial figure. Might have rustled the wrong feathers. Many accusation are also very nebulous, hard to verify and avoiding anything concrete that could get the person making them get sued for defamation. Of course, he also could just be an asshole and abuser. We simply can't know.

corncheese 4y ago
Exactly! Also the media should be sharing more of this. Than continue to push out stories that are already resolved. The brother Lucas ended up paying for all the lawyer fees after Dan won the case Interesting how the media continues to bring up the lawsuit but never share the real story and the outcome to the lawsuit. I guess it is more profitable to spread lies. Here is one article sharing the details after the lawsuit with Dan and his brother. People should do more research before blasting opinions. It is terrible what the US is allowed to share and spread buyer to gain more article clicks! https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-suit-filed-brother-gravity-payments-co-owner/ https://www.geekwire.com/2016/dan-price-70k-ceo-prevails-sui...
listenallyall 4y ago
Just curious if you have an opinion regarding Deshaun Watson or his accusers. For context, he is a high-profile quarterback who earlier today was suspended by the NFL, based on a series of mostly anonymous accusations of sexual misconduct.
- boppo1 4y ago
  Do you?
- cardanome 4y ago
  I don't. Never heard of that person before, sorry.

kristiandupont 4y ago

The very concept of slander could be defined as "smoke without fire". Surely you agree that slander exists, whether or not it's the case in this particular situation?

rowanG077 4y ago

No that's the worst rule of thumb. That's how you end up with lynch mobs, witch burning etc.