4 ms·

[flagged]

by ForHackernews 2y ago

[flagged]

gjsman-1000 2y ago
[flagged]
- drw85 2y ago
  Slander implies a false statement that caused damages.
  - swores 2y ago
    Damages are only required (in certain countries) for a legal case of slander to be successful, they're not needed to fulfil the definition of slander. It would be slander if I said the words "HN user drw85 has never said a sentence that didn't contain racist abuse", even if my saying it has no impact on you or anyone at all. (Just as it would be libellous - the equivalent of slanderous but for written rather than spoken lies about people - if I wrote a comment here on HN accusing you of being a mass murderer, even if you don't notice the comment and no law enforcement ever consider it of interest nor any other effects.)
    - drw85 2y ago
      Well, the definition literally says: 'a false, spoken statement about someone which damages that person's reputation, or the making of such a statement' I guess the distinction is important, because i could make a false statement that is not damaging, like 'swores has a red nose.', which might be a joke and thus is a false statement but not damaging nor slander.
- pixelatedindex 2y ago
  The Economist is a pretty reputable publication. Yes they have some biases but “slander” is a strong term that insinuates that it doesn’t have a strong grounding in facts or is written to explicitly cause uproar and not inform. It belongs to places like The Sun or The Daily Mail. Would you please point to an example or two where it is so one-sided that it’s far from the truth?
  - badgersnake 2y ago
    Plus, if you write it down it’s libel not slander. And given the ridiculous libel laws in the UK, to do so would not be a good idea.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Stronger: The Economist is used to having to operate under UK libel laws, which are far stronger than US laws. Truth is an absolute defense against a claim of libel in the US; in the UK it isn't. So accusing them of slander is not particularly believable. I'd need to see a specific claim, evidence that the claim was false, and evidence that the falsehood rose to the legal standard of slander. A bare claim, with no evidence, just looks like overheated rhetoric by someone who doesn't like The Economist's position, but who can't actually do the work of refuting it.
- not_wyoming 2y ago
  In the US, reporting true things is literally never considered slander [0][1][2]. The legal system has recognized truth as a wholly adequate defense to claims of defamation (which includes slander) dating back to 1734 [3] - before the Constitution even written (1787). -- [0] - "Under the United States law, a statement cannot be held to be actionable as slanderous or libellous if the statement is true but has "slight inaccuracies of expression", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_truth [1] - "Truth is widely accepted as a complete defense to all defamation claims." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation [2] - "Truth is an absolute defense to defamation." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger

[flagged]

gjsman-1000 2y ago

[flagged]

drw85 2y ago
Slander implies a false statement that caused damages.
- swores 2y ago
  Damages are only required (in certain countries) for a legal case of slander to be successful, they're not needed to fulfil the definition of slander. It would be slander if I said the words "HN user drw85 has never said a sentence that didn't contain racist abuse", even if my saying it has no impact on you or anyone at all. (Just as it would be libellous - the equivalent of slanderous but for written rather than spoken lies about people - if I wrote a comment here on HN accusing you of being a mass murderer, even if you don't notice the comment and no law enforcement ever consider it of interest nor any other effects.)
  - drw85 2y ago
    Well, the definition literally says: 'a false, spoken statement about someone which damages that person's reputation, or the making of such a statement' I guess the distinction is important, because i could make a false statement that is not damaging, like 'swores has a red nose.', which might be a joke and thus is a false statement but not damaging nor slander.
pixelatedindex 2y ago
The Economist is a pretty reputable publication. Yes they have some biases but “slander” is a strong term that insinuates that it doesn’t have a strong grounding in facts or is written to explicitly cause uproar and not inform. It belongs to places like The Sun or The Daily Mail. Would you please point to an example or two where it is so one-sided that it’s far from the truth?
- badgersnake 2y ago
  Plus, if you write it down it’s libel not slander. And given the ridiculous libel laws in the UK, to do so would not be a good idea.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Stronger: The Economist is used to having to operate under UK libel laws, which are far stronger than US laws. Truth is an absolute defense against a claim of libel in the US; in the UK it isn't. So accusing them of slander is not particularly believable. I'd need to see a specific claim, evidence that the claim was false, and evidence that the falsehood rose to the legal standard of slander. A bare claim, with no evidence, just looks like overheated rhetoric by someone who doesn't like The Economist's position, but who can't actually do the work of refuting it.
not_wyoming 2y ago
In the US, reporting true things is literally never considered slander [0][1][2]. The legal system has recognized truth as a wholly adequate defense to claims of defamation (which includes slander) dating back to 1734 [3] - before the Constitution even written (1787). -- [0] - "Under the United States law, a statement cannot be held to be actionable as slanderous or libellous if the statement is true but has "slight inaccuracies of expression", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_truth [1] - "Truth is widely accepted as a complete defense to all defamation claims." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation [2] - "Truth is an absolute defense to defamation." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger