[joreilly]

From the article:

> In her suit, Viola acknowledged writing most of the posts. But she denied being behind the anti-Muslim screed. That was critical to Sorokin’s decision to allow the libel and defamation part of Viola’s suit to proceed. The former professor “has plausibly alleged that Benton may have been negligent in his failure to verify that she was the author,” the judge wrote.

If she can prove that it wasn't her/Benton can't prove that it was her (I'm not familiar with the legal system, so I don't know which it would be), then there would indeed be an untrue statement. As for damage; why does anyone dredge up another's darker side, if not to damage them in some way? I can't think of another motive for doing so.

[dillondoyle]

Basically all critical reporting dredges up another's darker side and it's important.

Maybe you can say that she isn't notable enough that it would be valuable as news, but I don't think that standard would be hit there are a lot of reports now about Karens and such, and her being a professor adds some umph.

[GongOfFour]

Does tweeting constitute critical reporting?

[threatofrain]

Yes, as now we have heads of state and ambassadors using Twitter.

[klyrs]

> As for damage; why does anyone dredge up another's darker side, if not to damage them in some way?

To confront them with the harms of their "darker side", with hopes that they will have a change of heart and desire to reform. But.. that's often misguided if one does this in public before at least making an attempt in private.

[intrasight]

She was wronged and harmed by his actions. This should prove to be an interesting case.

[KittenInABox]

No, you have to prove that it was stated with intent of spreading false information about the person who was wronged. A reporter who genuinely believed that Viola made those statements can't be judged as committing defamation.

[dragonwriter]

> No, you have to prove that it was stated with intent of spreading false information about the person who was wronged.

Even for public figures where the NY Times v. Sullivan “actual malice” standard applies, intentional/knowing falsity is not required; reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement is sufficient for actual malice.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

[KittenInABox]

OK, let me add in your clarification. Thank you for educating me on the matter.

[spoonjim]

So if I genuinely think you murdered a baby I can publish articles saying you did, with no legal consequence?

[xadhominemx]

Yes, that is the definition of defamation in the United States

[colinmhayes]

yes, if you can prove that you genuinely believe it.

[spoonjim]

In the US that standard is only applied to public figures. For a private figure, the speaker can commit defamation if they do not exert reasonable care to ensure that the statement is true.

[xadhominemx]

No, the burden is not “exert reasonable care that the statement is true”

It’s much more relaxed: “cannot have acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement is true”