[sageikosa]

Would be nice to have the postulate backed by something other than proximity in the poster's posting, and the poster's speculation, however.

While such wild speculation probably can't get you in trouble in the US of A, some European libel laws probably would require a little more than "seemed like it to me" as a reason to publish an assertion of an association.

[pyre]

This is an issue that I have with European libel laws. It's almost like they don't want you to be able to have an opinion and share it with people unless you feel you can back that assertion in court.

[mtrimpe]

Don't worry. I'm European and I am certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that this won't get me anywhere near trouble under European libel laws. (Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as a 'European law')

First of all, European libel law requires a demonstrably false statement which 'seems to' by definition isn't.

Secondly, libel would be a civil offense so even if I were to be charged it would be the damage I caused to Opera at minimum (lowest value the judge deems to certain to have occurred.)

So basically only if I made a categorically false claim and it caused a demonstrable amount of loss (e.g. a contract with defined monetary value falling apart) would I be seriously affected by European libel law.

[sageikosa]

0) I didn't mean European as a sovereign legal title, more of a categorical concept in jurisprudence; especially in those who have less of a lengthy run-rate with civil liberties (mileage or kilometerage may vary).

1) While the qualifying comment used "seemed linked to me", the original post had no such qualifiers and asserted its points without anything backing it. I admit its a bit pendantic, and in American usage easier to "get away with" on a comment board. If you were a US TV news or print outlet, you'd have to pre-frame the comments with "editorial" or "opinion", to cover your legal bases.

2) Yes.

3) Probably :-)