Timeline for Does the following constitute defamation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2019 at 20:26 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | I have extensively litigated defamation in the U.S. In particular, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990) is one of various precedents dismantling your mistaken presumption that "opinion prefixes" (and, impliedly, "citing rumors and reports") preempt liability for defamation. Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 20:03 | comment | added | hszmv | @IñakiViggers: Are you from the United States, because those are actually things in the United States? The Defamation laws here are very in the favor of the person who made the statement in question (As are most speech laws that we have, our jurisprudence demands the accuser must prove the statements made were not protected.). | |
| May 21, 2019 at 19:57 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | @hszmv I don't know why your professors failed you (nor even that they failed you), but that is irrelevant to defamation and to the OP's question. My point, again, is that prefixing a statement with language such as "there are reports that [...]" does not necessarily or automatically preempt liability under U.S. defamation law. Also, the position that a kid's sexual life pertains to public interest simply because "it's in the news" sounds morbid and it misleads those of the audience who are not knowledgeable of defamation law. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 19:49 | comment | added | hszmv | @IñakiViggers: You mean my proffessors shouldn't have failed me for not backing up my term papers by citing my sources because they could be false? The whole point of citing your sources is to show where you justified that statement. And if he's citing reports, it's in the news and thus, he is commenting on public interests. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 19:42 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | @hszmv The OP did not make it clear what exactly the hypothetical defamer said nor how he cited the "rumors and reports". Hence, one cannot rule out that framing it as "rumors and reports" carries a defamatory purpose and/or emphasis on the falsehoods. You are assuming that the defamer centered on the mere existence of rumors and reports, but that is not clear --let alone unequivocal-- in the OP's question. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 19:35 | comment | added | hszmv | @IñakiViggers Rumors and REPORTS... as in, some sort of press has been made on the matter and referencing that is pefrecty fine. After all, it is factually true that Rumors and Reports of the matter... not that the matter is true or false. It's like saying "The Accused Murder" in a news report about someone who is facing trial for Murder that pretty much was captured on live TV... he hasn't been tried yet so legally speaking, he is still innocent. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 19:27 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | @hszmv You would be right only if the candidate's emphasis is on the existence of those rumors. But when the emphasis is on the falsehoods themselves and/or the intent is such (as is likely the case in a context of politics and election campaigns), it will not help the defamer to prefix his falsehoods with "there are rumors that [...]", nor will it be relevant for the defamer to allege that he is not "the source of the false info". | |
| May 21, 2019 at 19:16 | comment | added | hszmv | As I pointed out in my own answer, the politician cites rumors/reports, so he's not the source of the false info, he's just using it on an attack. He's aloud to bring it up as the rumor/report was in the public sphere before he made the comments and at the time, the correction had not been made. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 19:11 | comment | added | Putvi | You may be right, but if you had to prove it you could not. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 19:10 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | @Putvi In contexts such as election campaigns, it is naive to buy the theory that the "opponent's daughter" was confused with the "opponent's daughter's boyfriend's previous girlfriend". The latter is too convoluted and too distant to be "innocently" confused with someone so directly related to the opponent in an election. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 19:03 | comment | added | Putvi | The candidate got the wrong person so he obviously does not know the statement is false. | |
| May 21, 2019 at 18:59 | history | answered | Iñaki Viggers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |