Calling someone a pedophile is a case of libel per se. There is probably a case of corporate liability if they distribute libelous material.
People wrongly think all speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, this is incorrect. . Libelous speech is not protected by the first amendment, you have no right to libel someone.
Yawn, has to be taken to court and proven that you were willfully lying and intending to cause harm with the words you spoke. So this libel suit is bullshit and never going to happen.
Also, it's debatable if Alefantis would meet the higher standard of being a public figure in a regular libel case.
But if he did the standard is actual malice
”Actual malice" means that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, or didn't care whether it was true or not and was reckless with the truth -- for example, when someone has doubts about the truth of a statement but does not bother to check further before publishing it."
He would be able to argue they didn't care or were reckless with the truth.
However, for libel per se all he has to do he show he was never arrested for child abuse or child trafficking. I'm sure YouTube has lawyers who understand libel
Oh no doubt. It's not that he's right, it's that they are a business and lawsuits are noise they don't want to listen to. Customer complaints are much easier to handle.
Ok, except libel and slander and defamation don't apply if we are criticizing pornograpic material on JA's public Instagram account and restaurant. I understand you act as the devils advocate here, but do it in places where the evidence is flimsy, and don't waste your time on this.
view the rest of the comments →
AreWeSure ago
Calling someone a pedophile is a case of libel per se. There is probably a case of corporate liability if they distribute libelous material.
People wrongly think all speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, this is incorrect. . Libelous speech is not protected by the first amendment, you have no right to libel someone.
FriesischShipping ago
Yawn, has to be taken to court and proven that you were willfully lying and intending to cause harm with the words you spoke. So this libel suit is bullshit and never going to happen.
AreWeSure ago
Also, it's debatable if Alefantis would meet the higher standard of being a public figure in a regular libel case.
But if he did the standard is actual malice
”Actual malice" means that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, or didn't care whether it was true or not and was reckless with the truth -- for example, when someone has doubts about the truth of a statement but does not bother to check further before publishing it."
He would be able to argue they didn't care or were reckless with the truth.
However, for libel per se all he has to do he show he was never arrested for child abuse or child trafficking. I'm sure YouTube has lawyers who understand libel
phlux ago
hah! he would likely claim that the libel itself is what made him a public figure and try to seek a damage modifier on his suit
FriesischShipping ago
JA has political gatherings/fundraisers = entering the political arena. We have nothing to be afraid of for reporting findings.
AreWeSure ago
If he is getting things removed due to potential libel, I think he is focusing on the liability of the company and not the individuals
FriesischShipping ago
Oh no doubt. It's not that he's right, it's that they are a business and lawsuits are noise they don't want to listen to. Customer complaints are much easier to handle.
AreWeSure ago
Look up libel per se vs regular libel
FriesischShipping ago
Ok, except libel and slander and defamation don't apply if we are criticizing pornograpic material on JA's public Instagram account and restaurant. I understand you act as the devils advocate here, but do it in places where the evidence is flimsy, and don't waste your time on this.