Zak Smith is suing his accusers

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad





Unless someone is convicted and I can see the evidence I don’t care. No conviction means I could care less about accusations.
This doesn't quite make sense. As I understand it, ZakS is suing people who have accused him of stuff. if he wins, that will count as evidence (not definitive, of course) that the accusations were not true (I think truth is normally a defence in US defamation law, though am happy to be corrected on that). But no one will be convicted - defamation is a civil action and the remedy is damages.

Conversely, if the defendants win by arguing the truth of their allegations that will clearly count as evidence (again, not definitive) of that truth, even though no one will be convicted.
 





Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top