3 ms·

The legal system should probably get involved when there is an imbalance of power. Yes if an anon user on HN says another anon user on HN is a vi user instead

The legal system should probably get involved when there is an imbalance of power. Yes if an anon user on HN says another anon user on HN is a vi user instead of an emacs user - so what? But if the NYT runs a front cover accusing me of some terrible crime, do I have to prove that I lost financialy because of it eg. I didn't get a new job, in order to get more than a retraction at the bottom of page 9?

ajross 14y ago
If the Times truly and reasonably believed you were guilty, then you weren't libeled under US law. If they lied, then you have a case (and you don't have to "lose" anything financially per se, damages are more general than that). I guess that doesn't seem to bad a compromise to me.
- scott_s 14y ago
  As I stated above, and assuming he is a private citizen, he probably could win that libel case.
  - ajross 14y ago
    That's a good point, I'd forgotten about the private citizen distinction. Though again, the fact that the posited story was on the front page of the newspaper would sort of be an existence proof that the target was a public figure. Citizens whose lives are newsworthy are public, sort of by definition.
    - scott_s 14y ago
      I was assuming he was positing it as an absurd example: he is clearly not a public figure, and was wrongly accused of something on the front page. Also, the distinction between public figure and private citizen is clearly not whether or not they are newsworthy; such a distinction, as you point out, would always come up "public figure" by definition. I was going to explain the rational used, but Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
danielweber 14y ago
If the NYTimes accuses me of having syphilis or being a child molestor, damages are assumed. You don't have to specifically show that you have been harmed. You may need to show that the NYTimes knew it wasn't true, or had "reckless disregard for the truth," depending on your state and the specific case law.
superuser2 14y ago
Journalists who respect their craft report verifiable facts like, "According to police, excuse-me is a suspect in an ongoing investigation into [serious crime]." This story may damage you, but if a professional journalistic organization went to press with it, it is almost certainly verifiably true (barring a malicious reporter whose editor/fact-checker was laid off five years ago because Information Wants To Be Free). Until your trial, "excuse-me committed [serious crime]" is undetermined and possibly libelous, but assuming the police did, in fact, name you as a suspect, "Police say excuse-me committed [serious crime]" true and therefore not libelous. There is a reason newspapers write that way.

ajross 14y ago

If the Times truly and reasonably believed you were guilty, then you weren't libeled under US law. If they lied, then you have a case (and you don't have to "lose" anything financially per se, damages are more general than that). I guess that doesn't seem to bad a compromise to me.

scott_s 14y ago
As I stated above, and assuming he is a private citizen, he probably could win that libel case.
- ajross 14y ago
  That's a good point, I'd forgotten about the private citizen distinction. Though again, the fact that the posited story was on the front page of the newspaper would sort of be an existence proof that the target was a public figure. Citizens whose lives are newsworthy are public, sort of by definition.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    I was assuming he was positing it as an absurd example: he is clearly not a public figure, and was wrongly accused of something on the front page. Also, the distinction between public figure and private citizen is clearly not whether or not they are newsworthy; such a distinction, as you point out, would always come up "public figure" by definition. I was going to explain the rational used, but Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

danielweber 14y ago

If the NYTimes accuses me of having syphilis or being a child molestor, damages are assumed. You don't have to specifically show that you have been harmed. You may need to show that the NYTimes knew it wasn't true, or had "reckless disregard for the truth," depending on your state and the specific case law.

superuser2 14y ago

Journalists who respect their craft report verifiable facts like, "According to police, excuse-me is a suspect in an ongoing investigation into [serious crime]." This story may damage you, but if a professional journalistic organization went to press with it, it is almost certainly verifiably true (barring a malicious reporter whose editor/fact-checker was laid off five years ago because Information Wants To Be Free). Until your trial, "excuse-me committed [serious crime]" is undetermined and possibly libelous, but assuming the police did, in fact, name you as a suspect, "Police say excuse-me committed [serious crime]" true and therefore not libelous. There is a reason newspapers write that way.