(12-29-2020 08:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 07:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  "He isn’t arguing that Twitter called him a hacker, he is arguing that Twitter said a story contained hacked material."

I suggest you read some caselaw. Or just dance in the dark some more.

Twitter blocks stuff, explicitly saying it came from hacked material.

Common knowledge whom supplied the material.

I mean, good grief, that was literally a 'have to read it' case in Torts 2, was a question I remember from the Torts 2 final, *and* was on the review for the MBE classes. Leave it to lad to report to us how incorrect that is.

I am glad that lad, the expert that he is, opines that it is 'a stretch'. (head slap emoji).

(How did I know that this would lead here.....)

edited to add: at least, after not knowing the issue of defamation per se and the inclusion of punitives in that, lad has left the earth shattering bombshell and opinion on how tough it would be to show damages behind in a cloud of dust. Now, just to re-pop up with the amazing in depth revolutionary new view on the definition of defamation that literally rewrites 50+ years of caselaw and law school teaching in the dust.

edited second: no lad, he doesnt need to show loss of business with defamation per se. makes my first clause in the first edit incorrect, since lad has no clue apparently on that issue as well.

You’re right that it is common knowledge of who supplied the material to the FBI, but it is also common knowledge that the material provided by the computer store owner was anonymously supplied to the computer store owner - that an unidentified person dropped off the laptop for repairs. So logically it could equally apply to the mystery person who dropped off the laptop - the owner could be an unknowing conduit. And it seems even more logical that the person who started the chain of information movement was actually the hacker, not the person who was an intermediary.

I’m more than fine with you explaining why my comments on this being a stretch are legally incorrect, but you don’t actually do that above. Instead you make ad him attacks because I didn’t go through law school.

Im making comments that you are giving really incorrect comments about the law and never seemingly have the background or knowledge to do so.

I would be a rather dumb*** to debate the engineering aspects of drilling programs in your area not having that background, even more so studiously telling *you* what was the correct way to do it.

That doesnt seem to ring true with you here.

For example, you keep popping off how the store laptop dude has to 'prove damages'; in some contexts he might have to. When the issue is what the ibelous term is, no, there isnt a need to prove damages. Yet you keep bleating it like the earth truth.

Second, when confronted with the Twitter says it was obtained by illegal means, you provide a song and three sidestep dances about any number of supposed and fictitional or possible intermediaries. Uhhh..... there were none.

Then you go on some song and dance about the FBI that has zero impact on the actual legal issue. While it highlights your knowledge of the transactions, thrwoing that really stupid and non-germane factoid makes zero sense whatsoever legally --- it kind of highlights your thrashing of being an 'expert' in an area tat your posts kind of reveal a very stark lack understanding in.

And when someone publishes to the world that 'they refuse to publish things that were obtained illegally', and when the vast majority of the world recognizes only one actor as having supplied that --- yes, that is a bread and butter depiction of a prima facie case of defamation. I am deeply sorry that you dont know the common law lsit of elements in the common law tort of defamation, and how they apply here. But, that really hasnt stopped you here.

There are other facets that come into play, that is the audience reached, the status of the defamer and the defamed and how that might affect the level of culpability, and the issue of what exactly the defamatatory issue is and how that affects the approach to damages.

My suggestion that you get all atwitter about how badly you are treated since you 'havent been to law school' is simple --- stop presenting yourself as the know all end all on a legal issue. Funny that.

You want to believe that the shop owner has to prove up damages in this respect --- knock yourself out. You want to think that there is some weird ass third person huffle puffle shuffle that breaks the casual relationship there between the statement of illegal activity and the shop owner --- again, knock yourself out.

But when you categorically stake your point on the issues therein, if I were you I would be prepared to be called somewhat ignorant. Kind of the reason I wouldnt argue tax law or economics with #s --- I dont have the level of background to assert categorically things in oppostion there.

Kind of why I wouldnt argue environmental remediation engineering issues with you.

But I saw the damn armadillo that is ripping up my sod go past the sliding glass door, so I am off to do something a little more gd productive than this