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.
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.
This is the entire part of the citation.
The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"
You must prove all of that. ALL of it. Not allege it. In the case of Mitchell, Twin Cities did an investigation in which Mitchell's own investigator agreed with them that the screens did not appear from original hardware. That isn't "reckless disregard". It is the exact opposite of it.
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)
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.
This is the entire part of the citation. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"
You must prove all of that. ALL of it. Not allege it. In the case of Mitchell, Twin Cities did an investigation in which Mitchell's own investigator agreed with them that the screens did not appear from original hardware. That isn't "reckless disregard". It is the exact opposite of it.