4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoSo 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 agoSeriously, 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 agoI 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 agoSorry, misread name, made stupid post.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoYou sound like a rubbish lawyer if that is really your attitude towards it.
- tptacek 13y agoPractice a lot of law, do you?
- moocowduckquack 13y agoLook, 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 agoIt 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 agoWow.