Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on December 21, 2011, 01:14:09 AM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on December 20, 2011, 09:58:44 PM

Quote from: zby on December 20, 2011, 02:02:58 PM

Calling bitcoin 'illegally invented' as in the CBS press release about the "Bitcoin for Dummies" episode of "Good Wife" is a clear defamation and demands a legal action.

Link to the announcement text: http://1.hidemyass.com/ip-4/encoded/Oi8vd3d3LmNic3ByZXNzZXhwcmVzcy5jb20vY2JzLWVudGVydGFpbm1lbnQvcmVsZWFzZXMvdmlldz9pZD0zMDE3Nw%3D%3D&f=norefer

You have little (honest no) chance to win in the US with any suit.

In most states simply stating an incorrect fact isn't sufficient for defamation.
1) You must prove the fact is false.
2) You must prove you suffered a harm (not Bitcoin as some nebulous non-entity but you personally suffered a financial harm recognized by the court).
3) You must prove the entity making the statement had knowledge it was false.

Even in more "normal" situations the deck is stacked against you. Even if you believe CBS knew the statement was false that doesn't meet the burden required by the law. You must prove that CBS made an internationally false statement, and that you personally suffered a financial harm as a result.

The best thing to do is contact the editor (level headed) and indicate your believe the statement is false. Potentially in some future article/segment they may use alternate language.

The one way that could be proved (presented) is showing you lost money in the market, provided Bitcoin loses substantial value directly after the episode first airs, then does it again directly after the first rerun. But if Bitcoin gains value after the airing of the show, sue them anyway using the winfall profits and pay the lawyer in Bitcoin.

Now on to that South Park episode mentioned in this thread.

Cartman = Atlas

FULL STOP: This idea is too good, therefore a new thread is forthcoming in off topic. Stay tuned!

~Bruno~

Correlation isn't causation. Bitcoin going down and proving that it went down specifically because of the story are two different things. The rebuttal (well it wouldn't even get in front of a judge/jury) would be a chart of Bitcoin volatility over the last year. Still proving you suffered a harm is actually the easiest element. The US has some of the toughest (for the plaintiff) laws when it comes to defamation. The courts have indicated the burden should be that high to avoid having a chilling effect on free speech.