3 ms·
Desecrating graves seems pretty objectively provable and serious, if proven true. I think lots of defamation cases come down to subjectivity, thus the court sy
by prepend 2y ago
Desecrating graves seems pretty objectively provable and serious, if proven true.
I think lots of defamation cases come down to subjectivity, thus the court systems and judges and whatnot. I don’t think society would benefit from “it’s just he said/she said” and throwing up our hands. Courts are made for these cases.
- dagw 2y agoDesecrating graves seems pretty objectively provable and serious My understanding is that the oil companies main defence is that they asked representatives of the tribe in question if any of the land they where planning on building on had any sacred or cultural significance, and the burial ground in question wasn't flagged by the tribe. They claim that they avoided other sites flagged by the tribe, but this site was only brought to their attention much later and after protests had started. Their implicit argument seems to be that this site only 'became' a burial site when it was poltically expedient for it to be one, and that Greenpeace either lied about it being a burial site or at the very least greatly exaggerated it importance.
- prepend 2y agoThat seems to be the disagreement. But saying someone desecrated a grave is a pretty serious accusation. That’s quite different from accidentally digging up a grave that no one knew was a grave.