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.
To be clear no one can libel or slander someone else; however, Mitchell must prove libel or slander which means he must prove that Twin Galaxies knew the allegations were false. At this it’s an uphill battle to prove that the allegations were false much less what Twin Galaxies knew.
To be clear no one can libel or slander someone else; however, Mitchell must prove libel or slander which means he must prove that Twin Galaxies knew the allegations were false.
They also could have published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". And that looks very much like the situation at hand.
"Reckless disregard" is a higher bar than you think. Once they had the video analysis showing that putative records were generated using MAME -- or even that they were likely generated using MAME -- they passed that bar.
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: (Score:3)
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.
To be clear no one can libel or slander someone else; however, Mitchell must prove libel or slander which means he must prove that Twin Galaxies knew the allegations were false. At this it’s an uphill battle to prove that the allegations were false much less what Twin Galaxies knew.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear no one can libel or slander someone else; however, Mitchell must prove libel or slander which means he must prove that Twin Galaxies knew the allegations were false.
False, they also could have published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not [wikipedia.org]". And that looks very much like the situation at hand.
Re:Disgruntled Narcissists (Score:2)
"Reckless disregard" is a higher bar than you think. Once they had the video analysis showing that putative records were generated using MAME -- or even that they were likely generated using MAME -- they passed that bar.
Also, because they disclosed the underlying facts [rcfp.org], their conclusions cannot be deemed reckless no matter how shoddy you think that they may be.