Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9177435" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So, I'm going to briefly go back and do something I hate doing ... which is to explain the joke. Obviously, I hate doing that .... but I also didn't expect the joke to end in an OJ Simpson thread derail.To recap- there had been multiple conversations about what calling someone a "criminal" might mean in terms of defamation law (libel, slander), and tying it to, inter alia, Military Courts, or convictions (as opposed to being tried), and so on.My joke about OJ was trying to make this point- If you called OJ a criminal after ... well, you know (and yes, let's assume it was before the Nevada incident) ... a tort for defamation would not lie against you. Even though he was not convicted. The reasons for this are complicated, but then again, so are the various rules regarding defamation in the United States. To begin with, there is the intersection with the First Amendment - so there will be different standards when it comes to issues of public concern, or with public figures (or limited-purpose public figures).From there, you go to other issues such as the medium of the message (is this libel or slander). Is this communication something that a privilege attaches to (absolute privileges and qualified privileges)? Does this statement even meet the required elements for the claim within the jurisdiction? Is there relevant caselaw construing the issue? You can't really analyze a particular statement completely shorn of context. And even with all of that, a lot of actual defamation claims, even the colorable one, have to deal with not just the cost and expense of litigation, but also the "Streisand effect." In other words, there's always the real-life concern that litigating an issue will simply draw more unfavorable attention to it.Which means that you can't really discuss whether or not an Article 15 (or a charge without a conviction) would, or would not, qualify for calling someone a "criminal" without, well, actual facts.</blockquote>

Verification