John Barnett had worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement in 2017.

In the days before his death, he had been giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.

Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett's passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.

It said the 62-year-old had died from a "self-inflicted" wound on 9 March and police were investigating.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (9 children)

Not only did I read it but I answered the question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    You absolutely did not. The question was not: "Why don't news organizations claim Boeing execs murdered a guy...?" The commenter was clearly aware of the problem of libel, which you completely ignored. They asked why news orgs aren't discussing the fact that the death comes at a suspiciously convenient time - because they aren't. This is not the same as claiming that he was murdered by Boeing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    He claimed it shouldn't be libelous and I explained that it would be libelous. You're implying that journalists are somehow dancing around the issue, which is silly because we're all pretty well informed that the whistleblower was probably murdered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    it's not libelous to discuss the elephant in the room. you did not explain anything. you just disregarded the question with your assumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    If you say a person or entity with a public image did something really bad that they haven't been strictly proven to have done, with exceptions for things such as parody, then that is defamation. So, yes, it can be libelous to talk about the fucking elephant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    wowdaft. it couldn't be more clear that the suggestion is discussing the suspicious nature WITHOUT making direct accusations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Welcome back, bud, we missed you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    heh, the subtle suggestion that one shouldn't have a life away from here is embarrassing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments