3 ms·
Depends on whether you think true statements made in good faith with the goal of reducing harm can be defamatory. Generally, I consider defamation to mean: mad
by dekhn 3y ago
Depends on whether you think true statements made in good faith with the goal of reducing harm can be defamatory.
Generally, I consider defamation to mean: made in bad faith, not provably true, and with a goal of harming the target. It's pretty clear the definitions and laws have changed.
Note that Gino is also suing her employer- Harvard- who conducted a review and put her on leave. She has absolutely zero chances of winning this case or salvaging her career, as she has to prove that she didn't carry out research fraud (by editing raw data before publication), because she published the evidence of her actions.
We can expect that her case will be shut down before it reaches trial.
- injb 3y ago>>> Depends on whether you think true statements made in good faith with the goal of reducing harm can be defamatory. IANAL, but legally that's easy: no. Under US law truth is a solid defence against accusations of defamation. If the statements are true then your intentions don't matter.
- dekhn 3y agoOK, fair enough- in which case, I think a reasonable answer to the posted question is "No, it is not defamation to point out scientific research fraud". However, it's not clear to me that they proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt (IIRC the standard for criminal cases) or even preponderance of evidence, so how would the court case determine if what they said was true?
- injb 3y agoAFAIK the plaintiff would have to show that it's not true. That wouldn't be anywhere near enough but would be a start. I think they would also have to show that either the defendant knew that it wasn't true, or was reckless about it. They also have to show that it was likely to be believed as a factual claim, so expressions of opinion or hyperbole are not defamatory. This isn't legal advice, just what I think from years of reading Popehat.