🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘 on Nostr: I believe it's trade libel, so if he can prove the publication and get a court to ...
I believe it's trade libel, so if he can prove the publication and get a court to accept that it's defamation, damages are presumed from the fact of publication itself.
I think he could have a good argument and set precedent in either case. If the court says that calling someone antisemitic is merely a matter of opinion, and not akin to saying someone has VD or is unchaste (classic example of defamation per se), then it really weakens the the idea of defamation altogether. Everything would become opinion.
I think here, he could also show that the publications were made with the intent to defame and injure. I actually think this would be easy to establish. And I don't think NYT v. Sullivan is any protection. It's knowingly false or reckless, unless they prove he's antisemitic (I think he could reverse the burden).
Whether he'll actually sue? Two more weeks!
I think he could have a good argument and set precedent in either case. If the court says that calling someone antisemitic is merely a matter of opinion, and not akin to saying someone has VD or is unchaste (classic example of defamation per se), then it really weakens the the idea of defamation altogether. Everything would become opinion.
I think here, he could also show that the publications were made with the intent to defame and injure. I actually think this would be easy to establish. And I don't think NYT v. Sullivan is any protection. It's knowingly false or reckless, unless they prove he's antisemitic (I think he could reverse the burden).
Whether he'll actually sue? Two more weeks!