4 ms·
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 actu
by 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 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.