If he was originally included, and then excluded, with the reason given that heâ(TM)d cheated (or whatever)... then he has a very good case. Private parties still canâ(TM)t libel or slander a person, and if they make inaccurate claims about you, then you most definitely can sue them.
Only a layperson would think that.
You can only "slander" (when written, its libel) someone by making an objectively false statement of fact. An incorrect opinion is not libel. An conclusion based upon disclosed facts is not libel. Even if you believe that the conclusion is so wrong that no reasonable person could possibly agree, a conclusion based upon truthful disclosed facts is not libel.
Then you run into the problem of public and limited-purpose public figures. For a limited purpose public figure like Mitchell you have to prove actual malice. That means that you have to prove that the libel was performed maliciously and with knowledge that it was false. Not negligently. Not mistakenly. Deliberately false information was published.
Twin Galaxies laid out their case for concluding that Billy Mitchell is a cheater. What objectively determinable fact was known to be false and maliciously published? Be very, very specific. Because the "inaccurate" claim that Mitchell cheated in a score submission is itself an opinion/conclusion that is immune from challenge as libel.
Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a malignant narcissist thinks he has a "right" to be respected/acknowledged by independent parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Private parties still can’t libel or slander a person, and if they make inaccurate claims about you, then you most definitely can sue them.
That said, I know fuck all about the actual case.
Re:Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:2)
Only a layperson would think that.
You can only "slander" (when written, its libel) someone by making an objectively false statement of fact. An incorrect opinion is not libel. An conclusion based upon disclosed facts is not libel. Even if you believe that the conclusion is so wrong that no reasonable person could possibly agree, a conclusion based upon truthful disclosed facts is not libel.
Then you run into the problem of public and limited-purpose public figures. For a limited purpose public figure like Mitchell you have to prove actual malice. That means that you have to prove that the libel was performed maliciously and with knowledge that it was false. Not negligently. Not mistakenly. Deliberately false information was published.
Twin Galaxies laid out their case for concluding that Billy Mitchell is a cheater. What objectively determinable fact was known to be false and maliciously published? Be very, very specific. Because the "inaccurate" claim that Mitchell cheated in a score submission is itself an opinion/conclusion that is immune from challenge as libel.