(12-30-2020 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The simple fact is that one *can* defame simply be labeling an article.

Assume I provide information to OO, who writes an article on on it. #s, who works at Twitter, deep sixes the article and says 'we dont carry links to articles based on information from necrophiliac child molesters'.

When information arises on whom the source of information is, you bet your boots there is a defamation that occurred.

There has been:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact;
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and
4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Cant really tap dance that away.

When twitter falsely labeled the source as a hacker, they absolutely ran into a prima facie case of defamation. No matter the amount of hand waving and tap dancing lad throws at that windmill about 'damages', or 'they didnt know who he was at the time'.

But Suribachi lad I am sure will throw out some more tap dance and hand waving, or about some made up rule about a 'bridge too far', or somefink......

Sorry, not ignoring this response. I unfortunately don't have the superpower of responding to multiple posts at one time. Might need to start farming some work out...

I see how, in your example above, there more clearly appears to be defamation of Tanq based on the labeling of the article. It clearly says the source of the information is a necrophiliac child molester.

But do things not get complicated when the actual source of the information isn't clear? In your example, it's clear that you generated and provided the information, so the label applies to you. But when the actual source of the information isn't clear, is it so cut and dry?

Also, it's not like Twitter explicitly labeled the tweet with text that said the source of the information was a hacker. Twitter said this:

Quote:In line with our hacked materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter.

Would you not need to explain the jump from saying the material was hacked to the laptop technician was a hacker? I see that jump as being very logical and reasonable - but I also see other jumps that are just as logical and reasonable.

Let's say the truth came out that an actual hacker brought a dummy computer into the shop and then everything else happened as it did. Would Twitter be held responsible for factually and truthfully labeling the information as having been hacked?

My guess is you'll dismiss this as handwaving, but maybe I'll get lucky.