Timeline for Risks of criticizing people online
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2016 at 22:47 | history | edited | user3851 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
funnier example name, nicer case reference, removed reference to dale's answer and clarified that these aren't the only two defences
|
| Feb 11, 2016 at 22:36 | comment | added | user3851 | @msh210 The statement has to be proven true in order to use truth as a defence. Good faith is a different defence and not as easy as the truth defence. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 22:08 | comment | added | msh210 | "that what you said is true": I thought it's sufficient that the speaker reasonably believes it true. No? | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:49 | comment | added | user3851 | @Patrick87 Another phrase the court used was "is sufficiently factual that it is susceptible of being proved true or false". Have you read the Milkovich opinion? It also says that "imaginative expression" or "rhetorical hyperbole" are generally considered opinion, not because they are "obviously false", though. That isn't the standard. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:42 | comment | added | Patrick87 | I guess my question then is really whether "statement of fact" really means "true statement of fact" or just "statement which is objectively true or false". I have a hard time believing an obviously false statement can be construed as defamation and so I tend to favor the former reading. Perhaps that has more to do with whether the reputation is actually damaged or not? If nobody believes defamation there would be no damage to the reputation. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:39 | comment | added | user3851 | @Patrick87 And yes, the whole point of the opinion/fact determination is to decide whether the statement could be "reasonably interpreted to be a statement of fact". Factors that are looked at include (1) "the specific language used"; (2) "whether the statement is verifiable"; (3) "the general context of the statement"; and (4) "the broader context in which the statement appeared." | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:30 | comment | added | user3851 | @Patrick87 It is a case-by-case examination, and the judgement is made by the fact-finder based on the totality of the circumstances. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:29 | history | edited | user3851 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 308 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:28 | comment | added | Patrick87 | Regarding your IQ 76 example - is there not also an element that the claims be believable by a reasonable person? I mean, if I claim that a plumber I know eats three live kittens for breakfast every morning, that is a specific (probably false) claim that would probably damage the plumber's reputation in the eyes of anyone who believed my claim. If I claim that about my plumber, does the plumber have a defamation case? I doubt it. | |
| Feb 11, 2016 at 19:23 | history | answered | user3851 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |