this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
107 points (97.3% liked)

Moving to piefed.lemmy.fan/c/weird_news - Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'

1617 readers
1 users here now

Weird News is moving to https://piefed.lemmy.fan/c/weird_news on Friday June 27th. Please subscribe to the new community before then.

Rules:

  1. News must be from a reliable source. No tabloids or sensationalism, please.

  2. Try to keep it safe for work. Contact a moderator before posting if you have any doubts.

  3. Titles of articles must remain unchanged; however extraneous information like "Watch:" or "Look:" can be removed. Titles with trailing, non-relevant information can also be edited so long as the headline's intent remains intact.

  4. Be nice. If you've got nothing positive to say, don't say it.

Violators will be banned at mod's discretion.

Communities We Like:

-Not the Onion

-And finally...

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nick Canon, is that you?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 2 points 1 year 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).

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year 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.