Chester Copperpot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2024
It is only a strong argument if it is true. As we can't access the court files, I can't be certain, but my read on the 'ignored evidence' claim is that Jobst basically wanted to enter into evidence unattributable comments (ie posts or comments from people known only by online handles) and was rightly told that it is not admissible. That isn't going to change on appeal and is not the judge ignoring evidence. Karl needs to appreciate that online life and real life are not the same thing and what the internet accepts as 'receipts' and what a court of law accepts as evidence are necessarily quite different.If I had to offer a nuanced take, I don't think it's all entirely a bust, but it obviously has many problems of its own. His strongest arguments are that the judge potentially ignored some counters to Mitchell's claims, and that Jobst wasn't the first person to make the claim, despite them saying so anyway.
And unfortunately for Karl the 'everyone else was doing it, why are you picking on me' classroom cry is not a legitimate legal defence. Billy doesn't have to go after everyone who makes the claim.
In any event, Karl's issue was that he made it in a demonstrably false and defamatory way. If he'd said something like 'I can imagine that the stress of a lawsuit contributed to the mental health struggles that led to Ben's suicide' I don't think he'd have an issue.
But that is the problem I think Karl is having. I think everyone would agree that a lawsuit and a suicidal kid is a dangerous mix, but the reality is that you've just got to be more careful when shifting from that to specifuc claims about specific actions driving someone to suicide. An analogous example might be everyone thinking some weird fucking shit is going down when an adult has unrelated young boys sleeping in their bed, versus publishing specific allegations about Michael Jackson abusing particular people. The general view can be that there might be fire where we see smoke, but if you're publishing defamatory claims as fact, you need more than inference, even if many would agree or draw a similar conclusion.