Hello
@Mario Cerame! Nice to see you back and answering questions. I was checking the comments of the recent "Content Nuke" video and saw you in there.
View attachment 6978521
You may already know this after your revisit, but the source of the video is more or less entirely this thread, and mostly the OP. The guy is practically just reading it in video form. Kind of sloppily, if you ask me personally.
With this in mind as well as the knowledge that both Jason and the alleged victim have gone on record stating nothing untoward happened, would you have any insights about the legal ramifications of Jason trying to sue for something like defamation over this video or ones like it?
Also as a side note, etiquette here where you're replying to a bunch of people is to group it all into one big post instead of many individual posts. That said, I doubt anyone is going to get to upset considering you're taking the time to visit our dank and moldy corner of the internet to provide this interesting info.
OH I'm sorry and thank you for the correction. I will do so in the future. That makes tons of sense. I beg the pardon of all.
I seems to me that it really depends on specific facts and what facts a public figure plaintiff could adduce through discovery and at trial. Probably both sides would have to put on experts (of some kind) to talk about this site and the reliability of the information here generally and perhaps of specific sources here. So many things we don't know yet that we'd need to know....
I know you say the ostensible victim has come forward. To what degree would it be reckless in this case for the speaker to disregard those statements as coming from the actual source, and as true (i.e. not coerced or bought off or with partial error from faded memory)? Not merely uncareful, but reckless? Does he have statements otherwise? What is the complete universe of facts the speaker is aware of? Just a few scant messages in old forums or is there corroborating evidence from other sources unidentified in the video?
Do not trust anything from a random person like myself on the internet as legal advice. For entertainment purposes only, and Claude can probably say much the same--
It seems to me a public figure plaintiff would have to show at least clear and convincing evidence that the speaker had actual knowledge of falsity, or knew there was a serious, genuine risk of falsity and published the material anyways. Is this website the sole and exclusive source? How reliable are the sources here generally to a reasonable reader? Is there corroborating evidence elsewhere of material facts? What steps were taken to verify before publication? I need to know substantially more before I could opine.
Still, when you speak, the New York Times and you have the same freedom of speech. If a speaker doesn't act with reckless disregard for the truth--not mere negligence, not merely being uncareful--then the public figure plaintiff has a problem. If clearly and convincingly a public figure plaintiff can prove the speaker acted in reckless disregard for the truth, then the speaker has a problem. I don't know what the facts here would bear out. I need to know more. And this--this is all theory. It informs the practice sure, but....
In practice, you consider
risk and
exposure. How much of a gambling man are you? Good judges make mistakes too. Juries make mistakes all the time. What is at stake, what facts can be adduced, how sympathetic are the parties, how prepped is your lawyer going to be--how long will this be, how much can the speaker afford to arm themselves, is there a helpful anti-SLAPP that can actually be used--so many, many considerations beyond the facts I know. And maybe you can't know some important facts for a long while in the case. So again, what is the stomach for risk and exposure?
Unfortunately, I don't think I can adequately answer the question, but perhaps this explains at least why.