this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
29 points (91.4% liked)

World News

33507 readers
259 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago (6 children)

Same thing, defamation means that the one making the claim is unable to back them up with any evidence

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (5 children)

I don't think it does necessarily,

Meanings will be considered defamatory at common law if they “substantially affect in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards a Claimant, or have a tendency to do so”

This definition doesn't consider the truth of the statement or even whether it is provable, merely whether it affects opinion.

AFAIU this ruling just means that the lawsuit can carry forward to substantive arguments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Under this logix, saying something true would also be defamation, as long as it hurts the opinion of somebody else. This doesn't check out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I was also surprised about this, but I took this quote directly from the judgement in question. As I think about it, it starts to make more sense - literally, defamation is dis (break into pieces/remove/...) + famo (fame/reputation). The word itself only conveys that someone's reputation was injured, not that it was injured unjustly. IIUC the words for "unjust defamation" are specifically libel and slander, under common law. I think it's similar to how there's "homicide" (the act of one person killing another) which can be legal (e.g. self-defense) or criminal (e.g. murder). At least that's my understanding of it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)