Nick Canon, is that you?

  • Pandantic [they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      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).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      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.

      • Pandantic [they/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.