3 ms·
I 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 believ
by parrellel 4y ago
I 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.