Like, yes, you could say that by reading someone's writing you can come up with arguments for or against the idea they deserve to be called "a racist", but you can say the same thing about calling them "an idiot", or calling them "a bully"
-
-
As I understand the UK version of libel is if you say something that the court deems damaging to someone's reputation (ESPECIALLY if it costs them money) you must be able to prove in court it is true, as such the person being sued for libel has the burden of proof (...)
-
... despite the fact they are the "defendant" which is a really odd legal peculiarity
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
To be fair, that wasn't under the current iteration of libel law; it was updated in 2013, among other things to *theoretically* require proof of actual harm done by the libel in order to get a judgement.
-
I say theoretically because the problem here is you can use suits to force people to settle without it ever actually properly going through the legal process -- a problem to which the actual definition of libels seems ancillary.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.