3 ms·

... for us silent(ish) ignorants could you please explain what's wrong with the comment you have responded to? thank you!

• sseagull 4y ago
  It’s not even close to “reckless disregard for the truth”. Which isn’t even the right standard (reckless disregard for the truth/actual malice is the very high bar for defamation of public figures - regular folk have a lower bar). Reckless disregard for the truth is like still spreading lies, even though people around you are telling you otherwise, or even in the face of obvious reasons it is not true. Here, they believed a computer program that was promoted as being accurate. An average person would probably have no reason to strongly doubt it, especially if it has been correct before. If they were acting with their best intentions, based in the “facts” they had before them, defamation would difficult to prove.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• Aunche 4y ago
  By the same standard, a witness who misidentified a suspect would be guilty of defamation as well.
  • pas 4y ago
    if the conditions were so bad that claiming that the suspect was so and so is absolutely unrealistic, isn't that reckless? eg. a psychic claiming they saw the suspect from 1000 miles?