5 ms·

Interestingly the statement that “ defamation requires a provably false statement of fact “ is not true in all jurisdictions. German law makes a distinction be

Interestingly the statement that “ defamation requires a provably false statement of fact “ is not true in all jurisdictions. German law makes a distinction between „Verleumdung“ which is indeed like defamation and “üble Nachrede“, which only requires a statement to not be probably true.

causality0 4y ago
[flagged]
- atoav 4y ago
  Ah free speech, the thing that makes every discourse better if there is more of it. I surely envy the nuance and shade you guys have over there in your (political and otherwise) discussion. With it's two sides the US is truly a beacon of free thought. That polarization is not at all harmful to more nuanced positions. /s
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Yes and no. I find the contrast between US and German laws to always be interesting, often revealing a very different approach to what's fair and what freedom means.
ggm 4y ago
The article is almost certainly written with an eye to US defamation law. Squirrel Importunities not being an offence in lower Saxony, on a Tuesday.
- niemandhier 4y ago
  I am deeply confused by the second part of your post.
  - ggm 4y ago
    Squirrel related misbehaviour is the example defamatory topic. The article mentions (fictive) squirrel laws in two US states. To reinforce the legal distictions of jurisdiction I implied a (fictional) legal distinction in lower Saxony on tuesdays. I should have said Thuringia, and sundays. The Regionales-Eichhörnchen-Fummel-Gesetz is remarkably large there. Like the Berlin mountain it has to be seen to be believed.
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      not to mention the recent comments on Belästigung made by the Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkeichhörnchengesellschaft
glandium 4y ago
In Japan, defamation doesn't require falsehood. Yes, you can be punished for defamation for having told the truth!
- sschueller 4y ago
  How can a society function like that when any wealthy person can just sue you for saying anything?
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    I think that you said “any wealthy person” is telling. That you expect that the law is a tool available to the wealthy. Why would it be like that? As for the defamation itself, it’s no more “anything” that can be defamatory even though there is no requirement of falsehood. The intent to defame is still required. Most publications will fail that test (any journalism/public interest etc).
    - ejb999 4y ago
      >>That you expect that the law is a tool available to the wealthy. Why would it be like that? Its really not that complicated - wealthy people can hire lawyers to sue someone, poor and middle-class people not so much.
      - chmod775 4y ago
        Someone who can't afford a lawyer can probably not be considered middle-class. That would mean they have no discretionary income to speak of.
        Retric 4y ago
        Being able to pay a professional for to do significant amounts of work which is likely to result in zero value for you is a high hurdle. Many possibly most lawyers can’t afford to employ lawyers to sue someone.
        4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

causality0 4y ago

[flagged]

atoav 4y ago
Ah free speech, the thing that makes every discourse better if there is more of it. I surely envy the nuance and shade you guys have over there in your (political and otherwise) discussion. With it's two sides the US is truly a beacon of free thought. That polarization is not at all harmful to more nuanced positions. /s
TeMPOraL 4y ago
Yes and no. I find the contrast between US and German laws to always be interesting, often revealing a very different approach to what's fair and what freedom means.

ggm 4y ago

The article is almost certainly written with an eye to US defamation law. Squirrel Importunities not being an offence in lower Saxony, on a Tuesday.

niemandhier 4y ago
I am deeply confused by the second part of your post.
- ggm 4y ago
  Squirrel related misbehaviour is the example defamatory topic. The article mentions (fictive) squirrel laws in two US states. To reinforce the legal distictions of jurisdiction I implied a (fictional) legal distinction in lower Saxony on tuesdays. I should have said Thuringia, and sundays. The Regionales-Eichhörnchen-Fummel-Gesetz is remarkably large there. Like the Berlin mountain it has to be seen to be believed.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    not to mention the recent comments on Belästigung made by the Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkeichhörnchengesellschaft

glandium 4y ago

In Japan, defamation doesn't require falsehood. Yes, you can be punished for defamation for having told the truth!

sschueller 4y ago
How can a society function like that when any wealthy person can just sue you for saying anything?
- alkonaut 4y ago
  I think that you said “any wealthy person” is telling. That you expect that the law is a tool available to the wealthy. Why would it be like that? As for the defamation itself, it’s no more “anything” that can be defamatory even though there is no requirement of falsehood. The intent to defame is still required. Most publications will fail that test (any journalism/public interest etc).
  - ejb999 4y ago
    >>That you expect that the law is a tool available to the wealthy. Why would it be like that? Its really not that complicated - wealthy people can hire lawyers to sue someone, poor and middle-class people not so much.
    - chmod775 4y ago
      Someone who can't afford a lawyer can probably not be considered middle-class. That would mean they have no discretionary income to speak of.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Being able to pay a professional for to do significant amounts of work which is likely to result in zero value for you is a high hurdle. Many possibly most lawyers can’t afford to employ lawyers to sue someone.
      - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]