5 ms·

(Excellent username, btw.) Why wouldn't he win? As you mentioned, nothing has been proven, and yet in the "court of public opinion" he's already guilty and is

(Excellent username, btw.) Why wouldn't he win? As you mentioned, nothing has been proven, and yet in the "court of public opinion" he's already guilty and is the butt (in the literal sense) of jokes all due to the insinuations and accusations from Mr. Carlsen, the chess tournament hosts, etc. This guy's reputation is in shambles and yet hasn't been formally charged with anything and there's no hard proof anywhere (AFAIK). Seems to me that there's an onus on the defendants to prove he cheated, and if they can't do that... wouldn't they have to be found guilty of defaming him? Notably: I'm no lawyer and have no idea how defamation cases actually work.

jstx1 4y ago
> nothing has been proven The court cases won't be about whether he cheated. They'll mostly be about whether the people he's suing could legally say the things they've said.
- modeless 4y ago
  The legality may depend on whether he cheated or not. Truth is an absolute defense to libel.
  - inanutshellus 4y ago
    Right, but... who has the onus to prove anything in a libel case? Does the defendant have to prove cheating happened, or the offense have to prove no cheating happened? Or... neither? Or perhaps it's neither an something more like "an expert, with a lifetime's worth of domain-specific intuition, should be allowed to express an opinion based on that intuition"?
    - modeless 4y ago
      The defendant isn't required to prove cheating happened, but it sure would win the case for them, so obviously they're going to try as hard as they can.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  (I am not a lawyer) Wouldn’t some aspect of the case be about whether the defendants actually knew for a fact if Hans was cheating? In other words, were they saying “Hans cheated in this tournament and we have the proof” or “Hans’ play has been super sketchy he’s cheating”. There seems to me a difference here, both in intent and scope.
  - frumper 4y ago
    Yes, but Hans has to prove they knowingly said false statements. The defendants don't have to prove what they said is true.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      Hans has quite the uphill battle then.
JamesBarney 4y ago
In the U.S. you don't have to prove everything you say. It's pretty hard to demonstrate defamation, UK is much looser about what classifies as defamation. Hans would pretty much have to demonstrate someone else knowingly lied or was extremely negligent with regard to the truth . Which will be very difficult.
- Jtsummers 4y ago
  As a non-lawyer I had to do a bit of googling to get to the phrase I was trying to recall, but here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice. Actual malice: > The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Sets the bar pretty high for him.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    That appears to be scope to public officials?
    - Jtsummers 4y ago
      And public figures. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
One is not entitled to a good reputation. Your reputation arises from your actions, and Hans has cheated in the past and apparently has very few allies who would defend him for some reason.

jstx1 4y ago

> nothing has been proven The court cases won't be about whether he cheated. They'll mostly be about whether the people he's suing could legally say the things they've said.

modeless 4y ago
The legality may depend on whether he cheated or not. Truth is an absolute defense to libel.
- inanutshellus 4y ago
  Right, but... who has the onus to prove anything in a libel case? Does the defendant have to prove cheating happened, or the offense have to prove no cheating happened? Or... neither? Or perhaps it's neither an something more like "an expert, with a lifetime's worth of domain-specific intuition, should be allowed to express an opinion based on that intuition"?
  - modeless 4y ago
    The defendant isn't required to prove cheating happened, but it sure would win the case for them, so obviously they're going to try as hard as they can.
remarkEon 4y ago
(I am not a lawyer) Wouldn’t some aspect of the case be about whether the defendants actually knew for a fact if Hans was cheating? In other words, were they saying “Hans cheated in this tournament and we have the proof” or “Hans’ play has been super sketchy he’s cheating”. There seems to me a difference here, both in intent and scope.
- frumper 4y ago
  Yes, but Hans has to prove they knowingly said false statements. The defendants don't have to prove what they said is true.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    Hans has quite the uphill battle then.

JamesBarney 4y ago

In the U.S. you don't have to prove everything you say. It's pretty hard to demonstrate defamation, UK is much looser about what classifies as defamation. Hans would pretty much have to demonstrate someone else knowingly lied or was extremely negligent with regard to the truth . Which will be very difficult.

Jtsummers 4y ago
As a non-lawyer I had to do a bit of googling to get to the phrase I was trying to recall, but here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice. Actual malice: > The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Sets the bar pretty high for him.
- kolanos 4y ago
  That appears to be scope to public officials?
  - Jtsummers 4y ago
    And public figures. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

One is not entitled to a good reputation. Your reputation arises from your actions, and Hans has cheated in the past and apparently has very few allies who would defend him for some reason.