• 201 Posts
  • 232 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2023






  • That’s not the alternative to proving it being false, that’s the alternative to it being knowingly false. You have to show all four of these things for US defamation

    To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

    It’s the 3rd fault one that is the knowingly false or reckless disregard for the truth

    As a result, a defamation plaintiff in an American court must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement is false and that the defendant was at fault for publishing it. “Fault,” in the case of a government official or a “public figure,” means that the defendant published the defamatory statement with “actual malice” – which means that he knew it was false or at least recklessly disregarded whether it was true or false

    https://www.carter-ruck.com/law-guides/defamation-and-privacy-law-in-united-states/



  • Maybe for other countries, but this was filed in the US where that’s not the case at all. You need it to not only show it’s false, but that the person making a false statement knew it was false be or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not

    The CNN report was pretty damning and with how extensively they laid out the evidence that tied Robinson was to it, it’d likely be extremely difficult to show 1) that it was false or 2) that they acted recklessly when they were pretty through

    EDIT: and to clarify the “person making a false statement knew it was false be or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” is the standard for finding fault with the person making defamation when the actual malice is used (which is the case for government officials or public figures)































  • I’ve seen others online suggest that this was an intentional leak for fundraising, but I’m dubious of that for a couple of reasons

    1. The leads for dems in some of these races (though certainly not all) are larger than what you’d hope to leak to show it’s still competitive to drive donations. For instance, they show Hogan in Maryland down by 7 points and trending in the opposite direction. If they were intentionally leaking, they probably wouldn’t have mention these races or leaked an outlier poll showing it closer

    2. Why would they leak mediocre trump president numbers in this too? Trump wants to claim that he’s winning and that everything is rigged against him, but leaking something showing the opposite would undercut him and draw his ire