Quote from: Quickseller on February 10, 2019, 08:56:06 PM

Quote from: bones261 on February 10, 2019, 08:17:54 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 10, 2019, 07:46:36 PM

Quote from: bones261 on February 10, 2019, 03:22:20 PM

The statement doesn't need to be "proven" false, it needs to be proven true. The truth is an affirmative defense against defamation. And one only needs to show that the statement is more likely than not. You should know that logically, its much harder to prove something is false. The only way is to prove something is false is to show that the assumption that it is false leads to a contradiction. Also, in most jurisdictions in the US, accusing someone of a crime that turns out to be untrue is "defamatory per se" and doesn't require someone to prove the have had real monetary damages.

Suchmoon could be considered a "public figure" or a "limited purpose public figure" and under CA statutory law, she would have to affirmatively prove the statement to be false.

You really think that if suchmoon pursued this in the meatspace that a CA judge would rule suchmoon a "public figure" or a "limited purpose public figure?" Cheesy

Naturally, I don't suspect suchmoon will pursue this since the indications are that Thule is across the pond and it would probably require more resources than the case is worth. In any event, if suchmoon were to bring up a case, it definitely would be stronger than thule's case against Vod. Roll Eyes

A limited purpose public figure perhaps.

In the terms of the community, of which the trust ratings are in relation to, she is most certainly a public figure.

She would be counted as one because of her feedbacks being displayed as default which by law makes that she has a way higher responsibility than an average user here.
I tried to explain it several months ago to them but it seems they don't wanna ackknowledge it