4 ms·
Why? If he’s innocent, this seems like a reasonable lawsuit.
by NotYourLawyer 4y ago
Why? If he’s innocent, this seems like a reasonable lawsuit.
- rob74 4y agoEven if he's not innocent, proving that he cheated in a way that will hold up in court might be very difficult...
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoPlaintiff has the burden of proof.
- selfmodruntime 4y agoWell, perhaps then Magnus and Chess.com shouldn't have tried to deplatform him? Turns out, in civil matters what you say can bite you in the ass. Who knew.
- threatofrain 4y agoI'd note that Chess.com prefers to deal with things privately and would've been quiet about this had Hans not publicly used Chess.com's brand to bolster his own credibility, essentially saying that Chess.com vouches for him. Then Chess.com asked him to retract his words but Hans refused. This is ultimately led to the WSJ article.
- parrellel 4y agoI mean we know he cheated before, he's said as much. Now, I don't know if he actually cheated in the match with Carlsen, but Carlsen had every reason to believe the man would and did. Which would make libel and slander pretty untenable by my limited understanding.
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoVery much not legal advice here, but… believing that you’re telling the truth doesn’t automatically make it not slander.
- tylerhou 4y agoIn the US, it depends on whether Hans is a public figure. If he is, generally the standard is you have to know your statements are false.
- klyrs 4y agoIronic that most of us never would have heard of the guy if Carlsen hadn't walked out on the match.
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoSure, the actual malice standard. Seems like a tough sell on these facts, but might as well argue it and see what sticks.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago> but Carlsen had every reason to believe the man would and did. Carlsen also had the perfect excuse for his bad performance by suggesting the other player cheated.