2 ms·
If I understood the article correctly they can just weasel around the issue by saying the cards present a fact but that their interpretation of it is an opinion
by contravariant 4y ago
If I understood the article correctly they can just weasel around the issue by saying the cards present a fact but that their interpretation of it is an opinion.
Since the cards themselves are a fact an opinion on what they mean seems to be protected. As far as I can tell it is not considered defamation as long as someone doesn't claim or suggest that this opinion is based on anything other than a card reading, which as far as I can tell is not the case.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y agoI think judges tend to apply a lot more common sense and a lot fewer technicalities than techy people tend to ascribe to them.
- tptacek 4y agoIt's not so much weaseling, so much as whether the normal audience for this speech would have interpreted it as disclosing facts. You can't just say "in my opinion, this professor stabbed a student to death" to shield yourself from liability. But you can say "in my opinion, this professor stabbed a student to death, because I can see that they have the beady eyes of a criminal"; the basis for your claim is clearly not some undisclosed fact you've learned about the murder, but rather your weird ideas about facial features.