4 ms·

But sharing facts about other people is potentially defamatory speech (in the American context). There's a not-at-all small nuance here: when you make concret

But sharing *facts* about other people is potentially defamatory speech (in the American context). There's a not-at-all small nuance here: when you make concrete allegations about your personal experiences, you're not sharing an opinion—not sharing your subjective reaction to publicly-known information—rather you're introducing novel facts, provable objective facts, into the discussion—your version of those facts. And that comes with genuine legal risks. A remarkable fact that's stayed with me: Ken White (@popehat) once said that in his defamation law practice, his largest category of consultations was with clients who'd said negative things about a past romantic partner, who then threatened to sue. I believe his point was those negative things were true most of the time, but difficult to prove, or defend.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> But sharing facts about other people is potentially defamatory speech Yes, and? The service is protected in the US by Section 230, and Tea doesn't operate anywhere else currently. Individual users who use it defame are, in principal, subject to defamation liability, but in the US (and, again, that’s the only jurisdiction currently relevant), the burden to proving that the description was both false and at least negligently made (as well as the other elements of the tort) falls on the plaintiff (it is often said that “truth is an absolute defense”, but that’s misleading—falsity and fault are both elements of the prima facie case the plaintiff must establish.) Sure, in a jurisdiction with strict liability for libel and where truth is actually a defense, and/or where the platform itself, being a deep pockets target, was exposed, Tea would be a more precarious business. But that’s not where it operates.
- perihelions 1y ago
  That's all true. I wasn't clear on the context of this thread, whether we were talking about the users or the platform.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  The most obvious legal claim at the moment is that Tea was negligent about its security. I suspect that's going to be more of a problem for Tea than hypothetical individual defamation cases. Although having said that, how can you sue someone for defamation if you never find out you're being defamed? Any woman can say "Don't date [name], he's a bad person" and the victim will never know. Unless he asks a female friend for a social credit check, all [name] will see is a shrinking pool of opportunities.
  - naet 1y ago
    If it's an opinion or a statement of a fact it isn't defamation. "He's a bad person and you shouldn't date him" is an opinion you can legally express anywhere as much as you want.
blks 1y ago
Is making a post on eg Instagram after breaking up with your ex and telling that she/he e.g. abused you, illegal too?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  Heard of Amber Heard?;) I mean, I think it depends what you claim in this post.
  - blks 1y ago
    Your memory of Amber Heard trial is probably largely misrepresented by the media. Reading wiki article about it should be enough.
    - reliabilityguy 1y ago
      What exactly is misrepresented? It’s hardly a rebuttal when I have to go and find all the evidence to prove myself wrong.
      - blks 1y ago
        That he did, in fact, hit her, and that she is not a crazy woman as some media outlets painted her.
firefax 1y ago
I thought, as a practical matter, it's on the person alleging slander or libel to prove falsehood? I think sometimes folks don't properly threat model what can be done if someone chooses to think about what the consequences for breaking a rule are and letting that guide their actions, rather than striving to avoid breaking them out of some kind of moral principle.
- anonym29 1y ago
  Hypothetically, if I said "firefax murdered an underage prostitute and then sexually violated the underage prostitute's corpse in 2018 and was never caught, I witnessed it happen and tried to report it but the police refused to even open an investigation, firefax is a dangerous predator and should not be trusted", and you lost your job because of that, should you be the one with the burden to prove that never happened?
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    We are talking about what is the law in a specific country, not what “should” be the law. Also, the bizarrely graphic description is out of place here.
    - anonym29 1y ago
      It's a visceral thought experiment, intended to instill a sense of bewilderment at what being falsely accused actually feels like to someone who seems to offer a normative assertion that privileges bad-faith accusers, without actually causing any of the harm of a real false accusation. That is topically relevant and experientially informative while being restrained enough to not be actually harmful.
      - cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
    - fatata123 1y ago
      [dead]
bigfatkitten 1y ago
Even if it’s true and provable, very few people have the money to defend a defamation matter.

But sharing *facts* about other people is potentially defamatory speech (in the American context). There's a not-at-all small nuance here: when you make concret

dragonwriter 1y ago

> But sharing facts about other people is potentially defamatory speech Yes, and? The service is protected in the US by Section 230, and Tea doesn't operate anywhere else currently. Individual users who use it defame are, in principal, subject to defamation liability, but in the US (and, again, that’s the only jurisdiction currently relevant), the burden to proving that the description was both false and at least negligently made (as well as the other elements of the tort) falls on the plaintiff (it is often said that “truth is an absolute defense”, but that’s misleading—falsity and fault are both elements of the prima facie case the plaintiff must establish.) Sure, in a jurisdiction with strict liability for libel and where truth is actually a defense, and/or where the platform itself, being a deep pockets target, was exposed, Tea would be a more precarious business. But that’s not where it operates.

perihelions 1y ago
That's all true. I wasn't clear on the context of this thread, whether we were talking about the users or the platform.
TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
The most obvious legal claim at the moment is that Tea was negligent about its security. I suspect that's going to be more of a problem for Tea than hypothetical individual defamation cases. Although having said that, how can you sue someone for defamation if you never find out you're being defamed? Any woman can say "Don't date [name], he's a bad person" and the victim will never know. Unless he asks a female friend for a social credit check, all [name] will see is a shrinking pool of opportunities.
- naet 1y ago
  If it's an opinion or a statement of a fact it isn't defamation. "He's a bad person and you shouldn't date him" is an opinion you can legally express anywhere as much as you want.

blks 1y ago

Is making a post on eg Instagram after breaking up with your ex and telling that she/he e.g. abused you, illegal too?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
reliabilityguy 1y ago
Heard of Amber Heard?;) I mean, I think it depends what you claim in this post.
- blks 1y ago
  Your memory of Amber Heard trial is probably largely misrepresented by the media. Reading wiki article about it should be enough.
  - reliabilityguy 1y ago
    What exactly is misrepresented? It’s hardly a rebuttal when I have to go and find all the evidence to prove myself wrong.
    - blks 1y ago
      That he did, in fact, hit her, and that she is not a crazy woman as some media outlets painted her.

firefax 1y ago

I thought, as a practical matter, it's on the person alleging slander or libel to prove falsehood? I think sometimes folks don't properly threat model what can be done if someone chooses to think about what the consequences for breaking a rule are and letting that guide their actions, rather than striving to avoid breaking them out of some kind of moral principle.

anonym29 1y ago
Hypothetically, if I said "firefax murdered an underage prostitute and then sexually violated the underage prostitute's corpse in 2018 and was never caught, I witnessed it happen and tried to report it but the police refused to even open an investigation, firefax is a dangerous predator and should not be trusted", and you lost your job because of that, should you be the one with the burden to prove that never happened?
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  We are talking about what is the law in a specific country, not what “should” be the law. Also, the bizarrely graphic description is out of place here.
  - anonym29 1y ago
    It's a visceral thought experiment, intended to instill a sense of bewilderment at what being falsely accused actually feels like to someone who seems to offer a normative assertion that privileges bad-faith accusers, without actually causing any of the harm of a real false accusation. That is topically relevant and experientially informative while being restrained enough to not be actually harmful.
    - cindyllm 1y ago
      [dead]
  - fatata123 1y ago
    [dead]

bigfatkitten 1y ago

Even if it’s true and provable, very few people have the money to defend a defamation matter.