4 ms·

It's going to be interesting to watch someone with a documented history of cheating try to claim they were damaged by being called a cheater.

faeriechangling 4y ago
I think him being damaged by being called a cheater is incredibly obvious, it has materially impacted his future earnings directly, and it has also had a significantly impacted his reputation beyond what the prior cheating allegations did. Magnus and Hikaru are two of the biggest chess celebrities on the planet, and Chess.com (According to Hans himself) has the best anti-cheat team in the chess world. Being accused of cheating by these individuals publicly, as well as being accused to cheating RECENTLY, both have severely impacted his reputation. I don't think the legal question is going to be establishing that Hans has faced harm. I think that's self-evident. The interesting question is more did Magnus Carlsen's/Chess.com's/Hikaru Nakamura's statements amount to Libel/Slander? My money is against Hans. Libel/Slander is hard to prove in the US.
- Vrondi 4y ago
  One might even think that his own documented and admitted history of cheating is what has damaged him. Who wants to play against a cheater? Has he suddenly come down with a case of honor? How can he prove that? He has already destroyed his own reputation. Why should anyone want to play him? He is whining because he is reaping what he has sown himself.
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    I believe his past and admitted history of cheating did damage him, but that does not mean these recent allegations of cheating have not additionally damaged him. The allegations also weren't "Why - this man has admitted to cheated in the past - therefore we shouldn't trust him in the future". In the case of chess.com, they made specific and explicit allegations of cheating across a number of RECENT games. Magnus accused him specifically of cheating in the Sinquefield cup. The difference between somebody who cheated a few years ago as a teenager only online and seemingly reformed, and somebody who cheated again after claiming not to and cheated OTB as well, is significantly different in many peoples eyes. In a way that materially impacts his future career. Before the Magnus allegations of recent cheating, nobody was seriously considering banning Hans from tournaments. Now he has already been banned from money tournaments by chess.com. I believe the fact he has faced harm as a result of these novel allegations is so obvious as to be beyond dispute. It is by far the easiest part of Hans legal case to prove. Unflattering allegations against Hans literally ended up in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal because of the recent novel allegations of Chess.com and Magnus Carlsen. Past misdeeds do not mean the end of all future legal protections. Just because you have a shady past doesn't mean you can't sue for slander/libel and win, you see shady journalists who lie all the time win slander/libel cases all the time.
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      >Just because you have a shady past doesn't mean you can't sue for slander/libel and win, you see shady journalists who lie all the time win slander/libel cases all the time. It is actually very rare for anyone to win a slander/libel case, shady journalist or otherwise. The salient issue here isn't his, "shady past", it's the specific behavior he was engaged in. Specifically, he has a documented history as a cheater. If you alleged that he was having sex with farm animals, which is unrelated to his history of cheating, he would have a much easier time proving tangible harm. He is going to have to prove that the recent damage to his reputation was both unfounded and resulted directly from the new allegations of his cheating, and not simply the fact that Carlson and Chess.com publicized his past, documented history of cheating. In short, if you refuse to race against Lance Armstrong because you say he is blood-doping, he's going to have a very difficult time suing for for slander, even if he is not currently engaged in that behavior.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  I'd also 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.

faeriechangling 4y ago

I think him being damaged by being called a cheater is incredibly obvious, it has materially impacted his future earnings directly, and it has also had a significantly impacted his reputation beyond what the prior cheating allegations did. Magnus and Hikaru are two of the biggest chess celebrities on the planet, and Chess.com (According to Hans himself) has the best anti-cheat team in the chess world. Being accused of cheating by these individuals publicly, as well as being accused to cheating RECENTLY, both have severely impacted his reputation. I don't think the legal question is going to be establishing that Hans has faced harm. I think that's self-evident. The interesting question is more did Magnus Carlsen's/Chess.com's/Hikaru Nakamura's statements amount to Libel/Slander? My money is against Hans. Libel/Slander is hard to prove in the US.

Vrondi 4y ago
One might even think that his own documented and admitted history of cheating is what has damaged him. Who wants to play against a cheater? Has he suddenly come down with a case of honor? How can he prove that? He has already destroyed his own reputation. Why should anyone want to play him? He is whining because he is reaping what he has sown himself.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  I believe his past and admitted history of cheating did damage him, but that does not mean these recent allegations of cheating have not additionally damaged him. The allegations also weren't "Why - this man has admitted to cheated in the past - therefore we shouldn't trust him in the future". In the case of chess.com, they made specific and explicit allegations of cheating across a number of RECENT games. Magnus accused him specifically of cheating in the Sinquefield cup. The difference between somebody who cheated a few years ago as a teenager only online and seemingly reformed, and somebody who cheated again after claiming not to and cheated OTB as well, is significantly different in many peoples eyes. In a way that materially impacts his future career. Before the Magnus allegations of recent cheating, nobody was seriously considering banning Hans from tournaments. Now he has already been banned from money tournaments by chess.com. I believe the fact he has faced harm as a result of these novel allegations is so obvious as to be beyond dispute. It is by far the easiest part of Hans legal case to prove. Unflattering allegations against Hans literally ended up in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal because of the recent novel allegations of Chess.com and Magnus Carlsen. Past misdeeds do not mean the end of all future legal protections. Just because you have a shady past doesn't mean you can't sue for slander/libel and win, you see shady journalists who lie all the time win slander/libel cases all the time.
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >Just because you have a shady past doesn't mean you can't sue for slander/libel and win, you see shady journalists who lie all the time win slander/libel cases all the time. It is actually very rare for anyone to win a slander/libel case, shady journalist or otherwise. The salient issue here isn't his, "shady past", it's the specific behavior he was engaged in. Specifically, he has a documented history as a cheater. If you alleged that he was having sex with farm animals, which is unrelated to his history of cheating, he would have a much easier time proving tangible harm. He is going to have to prove that the recent damage to his reputation was both unfounded and resulted directly from the new allegations of his cheating, and not simply the fact that Carlson and Chess.com publicized his past, documented history of cheating. In short, if you refuse to race against Lance Armstrong because you say he is blood-doping, he's going to have a very difficult time suing for for slander, even if he is not currently engaged in that behavior.
threatofrain 4y ago
I'd also 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.