I was actually going to amend what I said to "a right to state an opinion since this is part of a person's right to freedom of speech protected under your Bill of Rights," but did not because it sounded excessively nit-picky, and also because there was a clear likelihood that the morons I was addressing would misunderstand such constructions.Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenward
This does not compromise the substance of what I said-- M1 has a right to his opinion--it is an effective defence against claims of defamation-- and, under your Bill of Rights, to express it, "wilful or reckless attempts to cause injury" excepted. He may not, however, state that something is factually correct when it is not and if he does he may find himself being sued, if that statement leads to an actual loss or damage to another party.
This particular dichotomy-- a person's right to state an OPINION, and the the right to redress if someone or something is FACTUALLY misrepresented, and this causes actual damage to that person's well-being or reputation, is frequently confused, as here. Furthermore, courts have repeatedly held that how a defamation is published is relevant, so if an expert in a particular field says "I am certain that," in a learned paper, this is much more likely to be defamatory (if untrue) than a lay person saying the same thing down the pub, since the expert is much more likely to be believed, and for a defamation to hold it must be "a plausible interpretation." Also the lay person cannot be presumed to have the in-depth knowledge that an expert would and is therefore, de facto, stating his opinion. This is relevant because M1 cannot reasonably be expected to know whether the people he was referring to have been tested or not; even without his "almost certain" caveat, it's still pretty much just his opinion.
Similarly, insults and name-calling are not defamatory since they are de facto an expression of an opinion, which is a legitimate defence. So if I say that you are a "nit-picking shite," you cannot sue me for defamation on the grounds that some people might actually believe that you are a piece of excrement, and this is injurious to your estimable reputation, since it is obvious to anyone that you are not in fact such a thing; it is just an insult, which may be provocative but is not defamatory.
I think. (Get out of jail card.)
But I'm not a lawyer, merely a writer. So I will not be charging you $500 for the above. But I have had to have my share of stories legalled over the years, so I do know something about this.
:wink:
Any chance we could look at some girls now?
