3 ms·

So you can't say anything bad about another person? wtf

by vaksel 17y ago

amr 17y ago
Yes, you can, if the the other person is a public figure: "Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth." http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation....
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
noonespecial 17y ago
Unfortunately, defamation has become one of the more often dredged up pretexts for lawsuits in the you can sue anyone, for any reason, at any time American legal system.
raganwald 17y ago
To be specific, that one judge that one time made that one statement in that one jurisdiction. In practice, it isn't quite so clear-cut. Anecdotally, I recall a high school law course where we discussed libel and slander. The gist of what we were taught is that discussing someone's behaviour is fair game, but discussing their character is not. For example, you can say that there have been a series of lawsuits against so-and-so for fraud and you are relatively safe. But if you then say that so-and-so is dishonest, you may have crossed the line into slander/libel, because now you are expressing an opinion or drawing a personal conclusion that defames them. Again, this is my recollection from a very simple introductory course many years ago.
ErrantX 17y ago
there is a distinction about drawing a valid conclusion and "abuse". If you can back up the claim of jerk then fair enough but if not, it's defamation - and the writer doesnt do so. Also as it is a prominent picture obviously deliberately doctored for this purpose Im sure it wouldnt go well for TC :P EDIT: personally dont care either way, I suspect they are right ;) but it struck me as amusing in the context of the article.

So you can't say anything bad about another person? wtf

by vaksel 17y ago

So you can't say anything bad about another person? wtf

amr 17y ago

Yes, you can, if the the other person is a public figure: "Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth." http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation....

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

noonespecial 17y ago

Unfortunately, defamation has become one of the more often dredged up pretexts for lawsuits in the you can sue anyone, for any reason, at any time American legal system.

raganwald 17y ago

To be specific, that one judge that one time made that one statement in that one jurisdiction. In practice, it isn't quite so clear-cut. Anecdotally, I recall a high school law course where we discussed libel and slander. The gist of what we were taught is that discussing someone's behaviour is fair game, but discussing their character is not. For example, you can say that there have been a series of lawsuits against so-and-so for fraud and you are relatively safe. But if you then say that so-and-so is dishonest, you may have crossed the line into slander/libel, because now you are expressing an opinion or drawing a personal conclusion that defames them. Again, this is my recollection from a very simple introductory course many years ago.

ErrantX 17y ago

there is a distinction about drawing a valid conclusion and "abuse". If you can back up the claim of jerk then fair enough but if not, it's defamation - and the writer doesnt do so. Also as it is a prominent picture obviously deliberately doctored for this purpose Im sure it wouldnt go well for TC :P EDIT: personally dont care either way, I suspect they are right ;) but it struck me as amusing in the context of the article.