3 ms·
That's certainly plausible... however, UHC is not saying "the doctor got it wrong, it was her receptionist's fault". They are sending legal threats - "take this
by kmeisthax 2y ago
That's certainly plausible... however, UHC is not saying "the doctor got it wrong, it was her receptionist's fault". They are sending legal threats - "take this speech down or we'll sue you for defamation". This is not a company trying to take their name out of the mud, this is a company trying to cut off their critics' tongues, because the critique is hurting the stock price.
- UncleEntity 2y agoI've heard on the youtubes that "provably false statements" are considered "defamation" in some jurisdictions. But what do lawyers know?
- kmeisthax 2y agoIn America - the only jurisdiction that matters in this case - defamation requires knowingly lying or having "a reckless disregard for the truth". If UHC actually sued Elisabeth Potter, they'd lose, although she'd also lose because she would have had to pay at least five figures for a competent defense. But if you really want to talk about other jurisdictions, there's plenty of opportunities for censorious fuckery. Just off the top of my head (and limited to capital-W Western[0] countries): - English defamation law is notorious for having a low bar for legal action. - Japanese defamation law only exempts true statements that are in the "public interest". [0] Having a liberal constitution and rule of law