4 ms·

They can't go to court in the US, because America protects this type of speech as free speech - whereas in Britain and in commonwealth countries, libel laws are

They can't go to court in the US, because America protects this type of speech as free speech - whereas in Britain and in commonwealth countries, libel laws are far-reaching and pervasive. Actually...he doesn't need to go to court...something as fact-filled as this, that will get a lot of attention, almost is better than a court-case. Because it plays out in the public, and Tesla will likely come out much better for it - because they are proving, with facts (not legal arguments), that this journalist was trying to perform a hack-job...but it backfired. I guarantee you, he is panicking right now - and the NYT editorial team (and perhaps board) is in panic mode right now. This cuts to the heart of journalistic integrity. As far as I can see...this is easily checkmate. Let's see how they respond.

btilly 14y ago
They can't go to court in the US, because America protects this type of speech as free speech Citation needed. http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel.htm http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel... (and many, many other references) disagree with you.
- marcamillion 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_law_in_modern_practice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#De... >Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.
  - btilly 14y ago
    Ah, somehow I wound up thinking that you were saying that they can't sue the NY Times here, rather than that they can't sue Top Gun. I'd be quite surprised if they didn't have lawyers preparing a case right now against the NY Times.
    - marcamillion 14y ago
      That is what I was saying. I was saying that it is harder for them to successfully sue the NYT in America because the courts have upheld protection of the press via the First Amendment. Soo....I would be surprised if they did pursue legal action against NYT - given how easily they were shut down in Britain that has more lax libel laws. My point was that they actually don't need to. This one blog post does more good for their reputation and more damage for NYTs than a lawsuit could/would.
      - btilly 14y ago
        In that case I have to go back to disagreeing with you. It is harder to sue the NYT in America. However it is far from impossible, and in this case I believe that they have solid enough evidence to make a fair legal case for libel. That said, they really would prefer to win this in the court of public opinion now, rather than in a lawsuit that finishes several years from now. (They probably want to do both.) And they would probably prefer to settle this out of court rather than having to go through courts. As always, IANAL, TINLA.
        marcamillion 14y ago
        Well....I never meant to imply that it was "impossible" for them to go to court, just that it may not make much sense - given that they had similar evidence against Top Gear in a very libel-lawsuit-centric jurisdiction and their case got thrown out. We will see what, if any, legal action they take. If anything, I suspect it would probably be against the journalist and less the company. I can't see the company standing behind Broder's statements - given these facts.
      - raverbashing 14y ago
        But it's still old media vs new media They should get their rebuttal printed in NYT competitor. Even better, make the edition for that day free

btilly 14y ago

They can't go to court in the US, because America protects this type of speech as free speech Citation needed. http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel.htm http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel... (and many, many other references) disagree with you.

marcamillion 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_law_in_modern_practice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#De... >Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.
- btilly 14y ago
  Ah, somehow I wound up thinking that you were saying that they can't sue the NY Times here, rather than that they can't sue Top Gun. I'd be quite surprised if they didn't have lawyers preparing a case right now against the NY Times.
  - marcamillion 14y ago
    That is what I was saying. I was saying that it is harder for them to successfully sue the NYT in America because the courts have upheld protection of the press via the First Amendment. Soo....I would be surprised if they did pursue legal action against NYT - given how easily they were shut down in Britain that has more lax libel laws. My point was that they actually don't need to. This one blog post does more good for their reputation and more damage for NYTs than a lawsuit could/would.
    - btilly 14y ago
      In that case I have to go back to disagreeing with you. It is harder to sue the NYT in America. However it is far from impossible, and in this case I believe that they have solid enough evidence to make a fair legal case for libel. That said, they really would prefer to win this in the court of public opinion now, rather than in a lawsuit that finishes several years from now. (They probably want to do both.) And they would probably prefer to settle this out of court rather than having to go through courts. As always, IANAL, TINLA.
      - marcamillion 14y ago
        Well....I never meant to imply that it was "impossible" for them to go to court, just that it may not make much sense - given that they had similar evidence against Top Gear in a very libel-lawsuit-centric jurisdiction and their case got thrown out. We will see what, if any, legal action they take. If anything, I suspect it would probably be against the journalist and less the company. I can't see the company standing behind Broder's statements - given these facts.
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      But it's still old media vs new media They should get their rebuttal printed in NYT competitor. Even better, make the edition for that day free