3 ms·
> the plaintiffs were required to show that the false statements caused them harm IIRC, only for public figures. The bar is far lower for private figures btw.
by dragontamer 4y ago
> the plaintiffs were required to show that the false statements caused them harm
IIRC, only for public figures.
The bar is far lower for private figures btw. A lot of libel/slander that would pass for public figures (ie: Politicians) are absolutely illegal and would be charged if levied against private figures instead (such as me, or the Sandy Hook victims)
> Notably, I can put up a billboard in my town that says “All of dragontamer’s code is buggy and it makes your computer smell bad”, and we’d be a long way off from you successfully suing me for defamation.
Hmm... I think the bigger issue here is whether the suit would be enough reputational damage to even get to damages. IIRC, there's minimum amounts of damage done before any suit is even considered (me lawyering up would cost more than the reputational damage in that case, so it just wouldn't be worth it).
The bar is set at a certain level of damages that I expect to get awarded (and courts also reject any case where the damages are too low). This is more due to pragmatism / the innate inefficiencies of court cases that make it less likely for all cases to be considered... rather than what is strictly legal or illegal.
IE: Even if we were to make it easier to sue for smaller amounts of reputational damage, no one would do it because of the high costs of lawyers in general (and high costs of a full court case).
- akerl_ 4y agoHarm is required in all defamation. Public figures additionally must prove “actual malice” on the part of the defendant, which is a term of art distinct from the common usage of “malice”
- ncallaway 4y ago> Harm is required in all defamation. Harm is required in _most_ defamation. Some claims are considered "defamation per se", in which they are considered automatically harmful. - Indications that a person was involved in criminal - Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious - Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct - Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...
- tptacek 4y agoPer se defamation establishes that harm has occurred whether or not it is specifically proved. I was going to well-actually the same comment you did, and instead bided my time to well-actually the predictable response. At any rate: per se defamation isn't at play in this case.
- akerl_ 4y agoMuch appreciated. I should have spelled this out more directly in my original comment, but this is what I meant about some kinds of harm being more obvious. Defamation per se exists largely to handle cases where harm occurred but it’s tough to point to a specific instance or assign it an easy dollar figure.