- Dołączono
- 3 Sie 2021
I mean, even on US soil, there is a case that Ian's statement passes the bar for defamation-per-se. Ethan is a public figure, which complicates things, but there's still a case to be made because the dude's cleared the hardest hurdle, actual malice. I think even with Destiny you'd have a harder time proving that one.
The argument that it's also "anti-free speech" is dubious. That is a libertarian-extremist interpretation of the phrase which Lex Jewthor is correct to assert has no real basis in law; in the US, you may not be able to be tried by the state for shouting fire in a crowded theater, but the theater company itself can sure bring a suit against you. (Even then, if the state can prove that you intentionally misled people to cause harm or damages, it's a different story. That's just a high bar to clear.)
It's not a government that's somehow enforcing a speech-code, which is what the basis of freedom of speech - and the lack of it in the broader anglosphere - is grounded on. It's a case of a private citizen suing another private citizen over patently defamatory statements. If there is a critique, it's that the broader legal system is two-tiered, where only someone with as much wealth as Ethan can access the system... much less defend themselves in it. This, I think, extends towards broader concerns about speech: this two-tiered system allows very wealthy, very connected individuals to even go after evidence, the very thing that makes defamation stop being defamation, through legal or extralegal means.
That said, I hope Ian represents himself pro-se, in a dragon costume, despite the fact that Canada no doubt will offer him representation if this doesn't end in an out-of-court settlement.
The argument that it's also "anti-free speech" is dubious. That is a libertarian-extremist interpretation of the phrase which Lex Jewthor is correct to assert has no real basis in law; in the US, you may not be able to be tried by the state for shouting fire in a crowded theater, but the theater company itself can sure bring a suit against you. (Even then, if the state can prove that you intentionally misled people to cause harm or damages, it's a different story. That's just a high bar to clear.)
It's not a government that's somehow enforcing a speech-code, which is what the basis of freedom of speech - and the lack of it in the broader anglosphere - is grounded on. It's a case of a private citizen suing another private citizen over patently defamatory statements. If there is a critique, it's that the broader legal system is two-tiered, where only someone with as much wealth as Ethan can access the system... much less defend themselves in it. This, I think, extends towards broader concerns about speech: this two-tiered system allows very wealthy, very connected individuals to even go after evidence, the very thing that makes defamation stop being defamation, through legal or extralegal means.
That said, I hope Ian represents himself pro-se, in a dragon costume, despite the fact that Canada no doubt will offer him representation if this doesn't end in an out-of-court settlement.
