5 ms·

Don't terms like "probable" and "my hypothesis" pretty obviously make this a statement of opinion, and therefore immune to libel claims?

dctoedt 13y ago
> Don't terms like "probable" and "my hypothesis" pretty obviously make this a statement of opinion, and therefore immune to libel claims? Quite possibly. But who wants to spend the legal fees to test that? Pragmatically, it's better to stay reasonably far away from the edge of that particular cliff, lest one be propelled over the edge by a random gust of wind (or a well-placed push).
- alexqgb 13y ago
  The FUD you're spreading here relies on apples to oranges comparisons, where the apples are public officials working in thee public capacity, and the oranges are private citizens. Before you go any further, I challenge you to find actual apples to apples examples that can support your remarkably menacing position.
- mistercow 13y ago
  I don't think that's a healthy attitude, especially when we're talking about the possibility of corruption. If we all take that "pragmatic" view, what will actually prevent corruption?
  - dctoedt 13y ago
    > If we all take that "pragmatic" view, what will actually prevent corruption? Journalists. They know that you avoid libel by stating facts supported by evidence. Truth is a defense to a libel charge (at least in the U.S.). And as mentioned above, when the libel plaintiff is a "public figure," a higher standard applies, precisely because of the public interest in ferreting out corruption and the like.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      So give some indication of how they would in any way be able to show malice in this case, let alone a defamatory statement.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Seriously, people voice suspicions about corruption and bribery on the internet thousands of times every day. Rather specific suspicions about specific people, which is a lot more than what the ancestor post did. How many /r/politics or /r/conspiracy or /r/occupywallstreet posters have been sued for libel? There is no realistic risk that the ancestor post will have to test his theories on libel in court; it just flat out isn't going to play out that way.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        I realised, please excuse me this complete and utter brain-fart, I'm going to stop posting things now and go to sleep. Is for the best. :)
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Sorry, misread name, made stupid post.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  You sound like a rubbish lawyer if that is really your attitude towards it.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Practice a lot of law, do you?
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Look, he is warning people to watch their mouths over language that clearly isn't actionable and then when challenged is saying that even if it isn't actionable it is best to stay quiet just in case. I don't need to practice law to say that this seems like really bad advice. "Don't publicly theorise about public figures" may be good general advice if you are actively being pursued by a court, however it is appallingly restrictive advice for general life.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        It clearly isn't actionable? I can rely on your legal expertise for that assessment? Had you heard of per se libel before he brought it up? And, is that what he's saying? "Don't theorize about public figures"? That's not what I read.
- ksrm 13y ago
  Wow.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
alexqgb 13y ago
Relax. When it comes the discussion of corrupt public officials, the bar is much lower than it is with private individuals. Since trust in the system is so important, even the appearance of corruption can be as open to criticism as corruption itself, which is obviously harder to demonstrate. Simply tolerating the possibility of abuse invites distrust, making those who tolerate it reasonable targets for sharp skepticism (e.g. the NSA). Of course, government is shot through with conflicts, both obvious and hidden. And people getting criticized for these ignore them and the criticism routinely. But that doesn't change the fact that you don't have to know something is rotten to speak up. The mere appearance of rot is, in and of itself, a problem. And yes, what's happening in West Texas looks REALLY shady.

dctoedt 13y ago

> Don't terms like "probable" and "my hypothesis" pretty obviously make this a statement of opinion, and therefore immune to libel claims? Quite possibly. But who wants to spend the legal fees to test that? Pragmatically, it's better to stay reasonably far away from the edge of that particular cliff, lest one be propelled over the edge by a random gust of wind (or a well-placed push).

alexqgb 13y ago
The FUD you're spreading here relies on apples to oranges comparisons, where the apples are public officials working in thee public capacity, and the oranges are private citizens. Before you go any further, I challenge you to find actual apples to apples examples that can support your remarkably menacing position.
mistercow 13y ago
I don't think that's a healthy attitude, especially when we're talking about the possibility of corruption. If we all take that "pragmatic" view, what will actually prevent corruption?
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > If we all take that "pragmatic" view, what will actually prevent corruption? Journalists. They know that you avoid libel by stating facts supported by evidence. Truth is a defense to a libel charge (at least in the U.S.). And as mentioned above, when the libel plaintiff is a "public figure," a higher standard applies, precisely because of the public interest in ferreting out corruption and the like.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    So give some indication of how they would in any way be able to show malice in this case, let alone a defamatory statement.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Seriously, people voice suspicions about corruption and bribery on the internet thousands of times every day. Rather specific suspicions about specific people, which is a lot more than what the ancestor post did. How many /r/politics or /r/conspiracy or /r/occupywallstreet posters have been sued for libel? There is no realistic risk that the ancestor post will have to test his theories on libel in court; it just flat out isn't going to play out that way.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        moocowduckquack 13y ago
        I realised, please excuse me this complete and utter brain-fart, I'm going to stop posting things now and go to sleep. Is for the best. :)
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Sorry, misread name, made stupid post.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
You sound like a rubbish lawyer if that is really your attitude towards it.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Practice a lot of law, do you?
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Look, he is warning people to watch their mouths over language that clearly isn't actionable and then when challenged is saying that even if it isn't actionable it is best to stay quiet just in case. I don't need to practice law to say that this seems like really bad advice. "Don't publicly theorise about public figures" may be good general advice if you are actively being pursued by a court, however it is appallingly restrictive advice for general life.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      It clearly isn't actionable? I can rely on your legal expertise for that assessment? Had you heard of per se libel before he brought it up? And, is that what he's saying? "Don't theorize about public figures"? That's not what I read.
ksrm 13y ago
Wow.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

alexqgb 13y ago

Relax. When it comes the discussion of corrupt public officials, the bar is much lower than it is with private individuals. Since trust in the system is so important, even the appearance of corruption can be as open to criticism as corruption itself, which is obviously harder to demonstrate. Simply tolerating the possibility of abuse invites distrust, making those who tolerate it reasonable targets for sharp skepticism (e.g. the NSA). Of course, government is shot through with conflicts, both obvious and hidden. And people getting criticized for these ignore them and the criticism routinely. But that doesn't change the fact that you don't have to know something is rotten to speak up. The mere appearance of rot is, in and of itself, a problem. And yes, what's happening in West Texas looks REALLY shady.