3 ms·

Yes in some cases this is a factor. In CA, from the 1703 Defamation per quod civil jury instruction notes, That [this person/these people] reasonably understo

Yes in some cases this is a factor. In CA, from the 1703 Defamation per quod civil jury instruction notes, That [this person/these people] reasonably understood that the statement(s) [was/were] about [name of plaintiff] And “If [a] defamatory meaning would appear only to readers who might be able to recognize it through some knowledge of specific facts and/or circumstances, not discernible from the face of the publication, and which are not matters of common knowledge rationally attributable to all reasonable persons, then the libel cannot be libel per se but will be libel per quod.” (Palm Springs Tennis Club, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 5, internal citation omitted.)

TeMPOraL 4y ago
Interesting. So imagine I combine some niche industry terms to call you something nasty - say, "init forker" - and make it a statement of fact, though one that's hard to discern even for insiders, much less for the general audience. But it so happens that you're an influencer on the side. You make an angry Tiktok video whining about me. Then someone in your audience makes a YouTube commentary about it. Then someone else makes a counter-commentary. Fast forward one week, half the population in the country knows what "init forker" means. Would this give you grounds for an effective libel suit? Even if it only became "matters of common knowledge rationally attributable to all reasonable persons" after the fact, thanks to third parties making the story viral on the Internet?
- noduerme 4y ago
  I don't know, but it's a great reason not to expand libel law. Especially in an age where everything is permanently recorded but the sequence of events is increasingly elided.
- gnopgnip 4y ago
  Yes the legal system in CA requires that at least one person other than the person being insulted here understands it is a defamatory statement made in writing for a a libel per quod case. It doesn't require the general public or a theoretical reasonable person would understand it, but then as a practical matter unless many who received the message understand it the damages would be minimal and it wouldn't be worth a civil case. And it still needs to meet all the other requirements, the statement needs to be provably false. Not just an opinion, not a substantially true statement, that the statements were made(in writing) to someone other than who they were about, there were actual damages and they damages were substantially caused by the libelous writing. Showing actual damages in a defamation case is hard
mannykannot 4y ago
Indeed, and the article says this: 'In determining whether the audience is likely to interpret a statement as one of fact or one of opinion or hyperbole, courts consider a viewpoint of an audience familiar with the speaker, the forum, and the circumstances. Scofield asserts that Guillard is known for “solving” mysteries based on tarot and “readings.” Doesn’t that mean that an audience familiar with her is more likely to interpret anything she says as premised on occult readings, and not on some undisclosed actual evidence?' With regard to the last sentence, I would argue that the target audience is likely to see no difference here, and what's more, regard the statements as being based on disclosed actual evidence.

TeMPOraL 4y ago

Interesting. So imagine I combine some niche industry terms to call you something nasty - say, "init forker" - and make it a statement of fact, though one that's hard to discern even for insiders, much less for the general audience. But it so happens that you're an influencer on the side. You make an angry Tiktok video whining about me. Then someone in your audience makes a YouTube commentary about it. Then someone else makes a counter-commentary. Fast forward one week, half the population in the country knows what "init forker" means. Would this give you grounds for an effective libel suit? Even if it only became "matters of common knowledge rationally attributable to all reasonable persons" after the fact, thanks to third parties making the story viral on the Internet?

noduerme 4y ago
I don't know, but it's a great reason not to expand libel law. Especially in an age where everything is permanently recorded but the sequence of events is increasingly elided.
gnopgnip 4y ago
Yes the legal system in CA requires that at least one person other than the person being insulted here understands it is a defamatory statement made in writing for a a libel per quod case. It doesn't require the general public or a theoretical reasonable person would understand it, but then as a practical matter unless many who received the message understand it the damages would be minimal and it wouldn't be worth a civil case. And it still needs to meet all the other requirements, the statement needs to be provably false. Not just an opinion, not a substantially true statement, that the statements were made(in writing) to someone other than who they were about, there were actual damages and they damages were substantially caused by the libelous writing. Showing actual damages in a defamation case is hard

mannykannot 4y ago

Indeed, and the article says this: 'In determining whether the audience is likely to interpret a statement as one of fact or one of opinion or hyperbole, courts consider a viewpoint of an audience familiar with the speaker, the forum, and the circumstances. Scofield asserts that Guillard is known for “solving” mysteries based on tarot and “readings.” Doesn’t that mean that an audience familiar with her is more likely to interpret anything she says as premised on occult readings, and not on some undisclosed actual evidence?' With regard to the last sentence, I would argue that the target audience is likely to see no difference here, and what's more, regard the statements as being based on disclosed actual evidence.