Ginny [they/she]

  • 0 Posts
  • 137 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle







  • This gives a bit of a false impression. Specifically, it is for the defendant to show that a defamatory statement is substantially true, rather than the complainant/plaintiff to show it is false. This is essentially because truth is a defence against defamation in the same way self-defence is a defence against assault.

    Essentially, the complainant must prove that:

    1. the defendant made a defamatory statement (i.e. a statement of a fact that - if true - would harm your reputation),
    2. you suffered a material loss as a result of harm to your reputation, and
    3. it was the defendant’s statement that was the cause.

    The defendant may argue in defence that:

    1. it was substantially true,
    2. they honestly believed it was true and had a reasonably good reason for doing so, and/or
    3. it was in the public interest to say so.

    The burden of proof is still “on the balance of probability” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt” in each case.

    This kind of makes a little bit of sense though, right? If I tell the world that you like to put your thumb in your bum and then sniff it, you’d probably feel it should be on me to provide evidence rather than on you to prove that you’ve literally never done that in your life.

    We are definitely lacking in anti-SLAPP legislation, but then so are many states.








  • One reason why people have historically had trouble suing tobacco companies is that non-smokers also get lung cancer. While we can say for sure that smoking makes it more likely you will get lung cancer, it’s generally impossible to say any one person’s lung cancer was caused by smoking. This is in contrast to say, someone who injures themselves climbing, where it is definitely 100% on them.

    The real answer of course is that you’re paying for it either way. Insured people pay absurdly over the odds to offset the amount of money lost on people who accrue medical debt and can’t afford to pay it off.




  • I think the difference between EfreetSK’s example and the situation to which MLK’s quote applies is that MLK already had enough people on his side to force others to take him seriously.

    In the UK, demonstrations for trans rights are fairly common. It is also almost exactly as common for them not to be reported on at all in any major news outlet. With the laws in the UK as they are, any trans person participating in a “disruptive” protest is liable to end up in a men’s prison (and if self-medding, as many must, deprived of HRT) for a long time, so there aren’t many takers for the Just Stop Oil brand of protesting either. It sucks, but sometimes softly softly is what’s required.