3 ms·
>>> 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
by 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.