Oh, that sly Nick Canon.
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
108 points (97.4% liked)
Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'
974 readers
2 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'd know you're dating Nick Canon because the child-support payments would start immediately
"says the women who use these groups aren't doing anything wrong as long as what they're sharing is their opinion or the truth" what possibly could go wrong with that?
I understand the sentiment, creating a space where women could feel more safe when meeting with complete strangers by asking other woman. But this has so much potential for abuse that I cannot really see how it could have a positive impact. A crazy ex can already ruin the social life of a person by spreading lies to your inner circle (people of all genders are perfectly capable of this), but if this kind of things gain traction, they would be capable to remotely ruin any new attempt of creating a new life far away.
Also these social avenues of reputation attack disproportionately affect the socially disabled and disadvantaged. Basically this is a really dangerous weapon against autistic and queer people.
Lies would qualify as defamatory. But most guys talked about in groups like this are not added on a whim. And to have that many women mentioning him, there isn't much chance of all 27 lying. Hell, the fact that there even is 27 women that dated him that found the page... says alot.
Oh absolutely. The article is very vague, but his behaviour seems quite fishy, based on the little information we have...
Why? Just because a lot of people are saying bad stuff about you, doesn't mean it is true. Seeing how they mentioned verifiable things, like "he has an STD", they could easily be proven in court. The lawsuit exists because he didn't know those women, who were defaming him, to a group of 100k women. 27 out of 100k randos lying, especially moderators of the group? That doesn't seem unlikely, especially if you try to get a post "moving" so there isn't empty space for people who are asking about a dude.
Just because a lot of people are saying bad stuff about you, doesn't mean it is true.
It actually does. 27 people, chances are almost zero they are all randomly lying without any clear motive.
Guy seems questionable, but I dunno man, Internet's weird. Snape Wives was a thing.
The lawsuit exists because he didn't know those women, who were defaming him, to a group of 100k women.
Where did you see that?
It's in the article. The Facebook group was nationwide, not just local people.
The article says the facebook group was local. It also says there is a nationwide network of similar groups. It doesn't say he didn't know the women and there is no evidence either way of who is lying. Given that facebook was made for men to judge and talk about women online i think it's high time it went the other way too.
This makes question though, where is the line between private conversation and public defamation?
We probably all agree talking smack between friends is ok, and defaming someone on xitter is not. The hard bit for me is where is the line between the two?
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.