this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
108 points (97.4% liked)
Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'
976 readers
286 users here now
Rules:
-
News must be from a reliable source. No tabloids or sensationalism, please.
-
Try to keep it safe for work. Contact a moderator before posting if you have any doubts.
-
Titles of articles must remain unchanged; however extraneous information like "Watch:" or "Look:" can be removed. Titles with trailing, non-relevant information can also be edited so long as the headline's intent remains intact.
-
Be nice. If you've got nothing positive to say, don't say it.
Violators will be banned at mod's discretion.
Communities We Like:
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I believe the line is drawn based on intent. Talking behind a person's back to vent out some frustration is not considering defamation. Spreading lies with the intent of ruining the reputation (both on social media or in person), or in general causing harm is defamation.
But I am in no way qualified to give that answer, so I hope someone more knowledgeable could correct me.
It seems this instance was neither one of those, it was to inform others of their experiences with the person. What do you think this falls under? If I can say true but defaming things about a restaurant, can I also about a person? It’s a tough grey area.
If it's true it isn't defamation. It isn't defamation if you reasonably believe it to be true, I'm fact (at least here in the UK).
The actual lawsuit puts up an example of a woman who posted an article about a sexual assault (iirc?) in a discussion aboht him, implying he's the perp and the lawyer is playing those types of things as what becomes defamation.
Yeah, that’s pretty clear, but unless all 27 were also saying that the perp was him, saying other things like their opinions of him, etc aren’t really meeting that mark.
The question would probably come down to "valid criticism" vs "harassment". 1A does get into some thorny issues about when protected free speech crosses a line. I would expect that something that is objectively true (i.e. factual) would have more leeway than a subjective opinion.