[crazygringo]

> They are directly calling you a scammer and "attacker".

No they're not. The word "scammer" does not appear. They're saying attackers on the site and they use the word "might".

This includes third-party hackers who have compromised the site.

They never say the owner of the site is the attacker.

I'm quite sure their lawyers have vetted the language very carefully.

[msl]

"The people living at this address might be pedophiles and sexual predators. Not saying that they are, but if your children are in the vicinity, I strongly suggest you get them back to safety."

I think that might count as libel.

[bstsb]

i think it's more akin to "people may have broken in and taken over this house, and within the house there may be sexual predators"

[alt227]

Still asserts that in that house there may be sexual predators. If I lived in that house I wouldnt be happy, and I would want a way of clearing the accusations and proving that there are indeed no sexual predators in my house quicksmart before other people start avoiding it.

[josfredo]

You can’t possibly use the “they use the word ‘might’” argument and not mention the death red screen those words are printed over. If you are referring to abidance to the law, you are technically right. If we remove the human factor, you technically are.

[crazygringo]

> If you are referring to abidance to the law, you are technically right.

Yes, the question was literally about the law.

I wasn't trying to say anything else. I was answering the commenter's legal question.

I don't know what you are trying to imply.