4 ms·

I think they have sufficient evidence to win the suit in the US. From the court: The Defendants accept that they have never had any evidence to support the all

I think they have sufficient evidence to win the suit in the US. From the court: The Defendants accept that they have never had any evidence to support the allegations apart from the two unverified claims published in coordination with the Open Letter. They were never in a position to make any informed judgement on the truth of the allegations, and did not seek clarification on any of the allegations from the Claimant.

rafram 2y ago
Most likely not. There are two parts of US case law that would be at issue here, but the key is actual malice [1]. The defendants here believed the claims they were repeating, even if they themselves hadn't seen the evidence. That isn't defamation. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating-a-defamatory-all/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating...
- f33d5173 2y ago
  "actual malice" means either they knew it was untrue or they published it with reckless disregard for the truth. That would be the test he would attempt to prove they failed.
- mminer237 2y ago
  Actual malice (which, reckless disregard isn't all that hard to get) it's only required if a person is a public figure. For most people, you only have to show negligence.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]