3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe legality may depend on whether he cheated or not. Truth is an absolute defense to libel.
- inanutshellus 4y agoRight, 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 agoThe 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.