3 ms·

If I understand correctly: if I threaten a third party based on something you’ve said, you now face legal liability?

• ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  A single person reacting that way is unlikely to make the speaker liable, but when a large crowd reacts the same way and the speaker does not make attempts to defuse the situation, then liability should be assigned.
  • the_optimist 2y ago
    So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not suggesting you’re wrong or right, but your approach places a novel legal burden on observers, and thus detaches it from actors, where the responsibility currently lies.
    • ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      > So you’re saying that every supportive observer in every worldstar fight video should be held liable for any injuries? Not at all - I'm saying the liability should go in the opposite direction. If worldstar fight videos incite lots of people to start fighting in the streets, then worldstar should be partially responsible unless they take actions to distance themselves from their viewers' actions.
      • the_optimist 2y ago
        So if Alex Jones posts on WorldStar, they’d be liable? How far does deplatforming responsibility extend in this theory?
• tim333 2y ago
  Googling: >To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages So probably no in that case as there was no significant damage. Sandy Hook was different in that there were ongoing threats and harassment for years.