Nick Canon, is that you?

  • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    This makes question though, where is the line between private conversation and public defamation?

    We probably all agree talking smack between friends is ok, and defaming someone on xitter is not. The hard bit for me is where is the line between the two?

    • TheWonderfool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I believe the line is drawn based on intent. Talking behind a person’s back to vent out some frustration is not considering defamation. Spreading lies with the intent of ruining the reputation (both on social media or in person), or in general causing harm is defamation.

      But I am in no way qualified to give that answer, so I hope someone more knowledgeable could correct me.

      • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 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.

        • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 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.

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 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]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            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.

        • BluesF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 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).