[perihelions]

But sharing *facts* about other people is potentially defamatory speech (in the American context). There's a not-at-all small nuance here: when you make concrete allegations about your personal experiences, you're not sharing an opinion—not sharing your subjective reaction to publicly-known information—rather you're introducing novel facts, provable objective facts, into the discussion—your version of those facts. And that comes with genuine legal risks.

A remarkable fact that's stayed with me: Ken White (@popehat) once said that in his defamation law practice, his largest category of consultations was with clients who'd said negative things about a past romantic partner, who then threatened to sue. I believe his point was those negative things were true most of the time, but difficult to prove, or defend.

[firefax]

I thought, as a practical matter, it's on the person alleging slander or libel to prove falsehood?

I think sometimes folks don't properly threat model what can be done if someone chooses to think about what the consequences for breaking a rule are and letting that guide their actions, rather than striving to avoid breaking them out of some kind of moral principle.

[anonym29]

Hypothetically, if I said "firefax murdered an underage prostitute and then sexually violated the underage prostitute's corpse in 2018 and was never caught, I witnessed it happen and tried to report it but the police refused to even open an investigation, firefax is a dangerous predator and should not be trusted", and you lost your job because of that, should you be the one with the burden to prove that never happened?

[umanwizard]

We are talking about what is the law in a specific country, not what “should” be the law. Also, the bizarrely graphic description is out of place here.

[anonym29]

It's a visceral thought experiment, intended to instill a sense of bewilderment at what being falsely accused actually feels like to someone who seems to offer a normative assertion that privileges bad-faith accusers, without actually causing any of the harm of a real false accusation. That is topically relevant and experientially informative while being restrained enough to not be actually harmful.

[tpmoney]

It’s complicated in the US. The rules of thumb as I understand them are:

1) The truth is an absolute defense against libel claims, but it is a defense, so you must prove the truth of your claims.

2) Statements of opinion (or that a “reasonable person” would understand to be opinion) are with few exceptions protected. “Firefax is a rapist” is likely to not be considered a statement of opinion. “Firefax is a creepy asshole” likely is. “Firefax is a sexual predator” is probably going to be in a grey area and context and damages will be relevant.

3) The more “public” of a person you are, the harder it is to win a libel case, even the statements were false. For example, let’s say it turns out both that there is some “Epstein List” describing clients and their activities, and also that it turns out Trump doesn’t appear anywhere in that list. Trump is such a public figure (both as a celebrity and as the POTUS) that he would be extremely unlikely to win any libel cases against the internet randos confidently asserting he’s on the list even though that statement would have been a statement of fact, and would have been false.

4) A key part of the “opinion” grey area is whether you imply knowledge of heretofore unknown facts, or your relying on publicly available data. Internet randos might not lose a case, but someone like Elon Musk might if they said something like “I’ve seen the case files, Trump is definitely on that list and has done some sick things”. This is because Musk could reasonably be believed to have had privileged access to the information in question and have non-public facts they are basing their statements on. Internet randos on the other hand are largely going to be considered making their statements on the back of publicly known facts (e.g. photos, business connections, public actions and statements) and general “vibes”

[dragonwriter]

> But sharing facts about other people is potentially defamatory speech

Yes, and? The service is protected in the US by Section 230, and Tea doesn't operate anywhere else currently. Individual users who use it defame are, in principal, subject to defamation liability, but in the US (and, again, that’s the only jurisdiction currently relevant), the burden to proving that the description was both false and at least negligently made (as well as the other elements of the tort) falls on the plaintiff (it is often said that “truth is an absolute defense”, but that’s misleading—falsity and fault are both elements of the prima facie case the plaintiff must establish.)

Sure, in a jurisdiction with strict liability for libel and where truth is actually a defense, and/or where the platform itself, being a deep pockets target, was exposed, Tea would be a more precarious business. But that’s not where it operates.

[TheOtherHobbes]

The most obvious legal claim at the moment is that Tea was negligent about its security.

I suspect that's going to be more of a problem for Tea than hypothetical individual defamation cases.

Although having said that, how can you sue someone for defamation if you never find out you're being defamed?

Any woman can say "Don't date [name], he's a bad person" and the victim will never know.

Unless he asks a female friend for a social credit check, all [name] will see is a shrinking pool of opportunities.

[naet]

If it's an opinion or a statement of a fact it isn't defamation.

"He's a bad person and you shouldn't date him" is an opinion you can legally express anywhere as much as you want.

[perihelions]

That's all true. I wasn't clear on the context of this thread, whether we were talking about the users or the platform.

[blks]

Is making a post on eg Instagram after breaking up with your ex and telling that she/he e.g. abused you, illegal too?

[reliabilityguy]

Heard of Amber Heard?;)

I mean, I think it depends what you claim in this post.

[blks]

Your memory of Amber Heard trial is probably largely misrepresented by the media. Reading wiki article about it should be enough.

[reliabilityguy]

What exactly is misrepresented?

It’s hardly a rebuttal when I have to go and find all the evidence to prove myself wrong.

[blks]

That he did, in fact, hit her, and that she is not a crazy woman as some media outlets painted her.

[bigfatkitten]

Even if it’s true and provable, very few people have the money to defend a defamation matter.