Slander online, get sued

[CryptoGretzky]

If you think you can hide anonymously, think again.   Dan and XC, Inc. is US based.  

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sections/precedent/cases.html

You are playing with fire if you think slandering is something you can do to a public figure.

FAQ:  isn't crypto not regulated?

A: Yes, but we are not talking about crypto.   We are talking about Dan's business reputation.   Damaging his reputation online is slandering IF it's NOT true.   If you have absolutely 100% proof that he is, then of course it's not slandering.   How sure you are of these proofs that is up to you.   You can't claim ignorance that you didn't know you can get sued for online slander because you have just read this thread.

[1713970303]

1713970303

[Nullu]

In the same light, if scammers think they can protect themselves by threatening libel, think again.

If you have strong evidence someone is a scammer, don't be afraid to present your evidence. And I mean evidence, not FUD.

Because any scammer threatening with libel would also have every nook and cranny of their crypto affairs scrutinised. Think about that for a second. Don't be afraid to oust scammers, but at the same time, don't discredit people with false libellous claims.

[CryptoGretzky]

In the same light, if scammers think they can protect themselves by threatening libel, think again.

If you have strong evidence someone is a scammer, don't be afraid to present your evidence. And I mean evidence, not FUD.

Because any scammer threatening with libel would also have every nook and cranny of their crypto affairs scrutinised. Think about that for a second. Don't be afraid to oust scammers, but at the same time, don't discredit people with false libellous claims.

Hey, if you have enough evidence and it's a true scam, sure definitely sue away.     So, why don't you?

[CryptoGretzky]

Uh wait, i though Cryptocurrency are not regulated ? So you can Pump&Dump / scam people with false/misinformation but you can't use your free speech ? So do we have facebook rules all over Internet nowadays ?

Get real, the judges will laugh at you like this.

Slandering and defamation is free speech to you?   You obviously have no idea how the legal system work.   

As I said above, if you have enough evidence that Dan is scamming, then why don't you sue him too?   If not, then you are slandering, simple as that.    Which part of the precedence I linked you do you not understand?   It's happened before.   It's reality.

[jwinterm]

Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

- a publication to one other than the person defamed;
- a false statement of fact;
       that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.

If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

The bolded portion may be especially difficult in light of the following quote also from EFF:

No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole...

Also look at the bolded portion above. There's no way that people on this forum speculating about evidence presented about other users is going to be treated by a court as libel. There is significant "evidence" floating around here that people are free to speculate whether or not anyone posting here is a scammer. I have to agree with other posters who say that any libel case centering around comments made on this forum would be laughed out of court.

[CryptoGretzky]

Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

- a publication to one other than the person defamed;
- a false statement of fact;
       that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.

If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

The bolded portion may be especially difficult in light of the following quote also from EFF:

No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole...

Also look at the bolded portion above. There's no way that people on this forum speculating about evidence presented about other users is going to be treated by a court as libel. There is significant "evidence" floating around here that people are free to speculate whether or not anyone posting here is a scammer. I have to agree with other posters who say that any libel case centering around comments made on this forum would be laughed out of court.

Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you?   We will just have to see who's laughing at the end.

[jwinterm]

Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):
...

Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you?   We will just have to see who's laughing at the end.

I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF:

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none.

[Nullu]

In the same light, if scammers think they can protect themselves by threatening libel, think again.

If you have strong evidence someone is a scammer, don't be afraid to present your evidence. And I mean evidence, not FUD.

Because any scammer threatening with libel would also have every nook and cranny of their crypto affairs scrutinised. Think about that for a second. Don't be afraid to oust scammers, but at the same time, don't discredit people with false libellous claims.

Hey, if you have enough evidence and it's a true scam, sure definitely sue away.     So, why don't you?

You speaking generally, or me, specifically? If to me, specifically, the answer is; I have better things to do with my time. These boards are so scam ridden that It'd be like pissing in the ocean.

If you mean generally, then sure, why not? If you have strong evidence someone is a scammer, they're hardly going to sue you, are they? I agree that FUD and trying to destroy someone's character for other reasons is deplorable.

[CryptoGretzky]

Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):
...

Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you?   We will just have to see who's laughing at the end.

I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF:

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none.

Shitload of FUDsters posting bullshit AS evidence.   There's a huge difference here.    I am not even saying who's right and who's wrong here.  I am just saying that if you call a public business person a scammer and you don't have proof, then you are definitely slandering.  

Now, how sure those "proof" that you think you have are real and you are not joining the paid slandering campaign?   Please do tell.

[jwinterm]

Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):
...

Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you?   We will just have to see who's laughing at the end.

I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF:

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none.

Shitload of FUDsters posting bullshit AS evidence.   There's a huge difference here.    I am not even saying who's right and who's wrong here.  I am just saying that if you call a public business person a scammer and you don't have proof, then you are definitely slandering.  

Now, how sure those "proof" that you think you have are real and you are not joining the paid slandering campaign?   Please do tell.

You keep using that word ("slander"), I don't think you know what it means...

From ( http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander ):

Slander involves the oral "publication" of a defamatory remark that is heard by another, which injures the subject's reputation or character. Slander can occur through the use of a hand gesture or verbal communication that is not recorded. Libel, on the other hand, is the written "publication" of a defamatory remark that has the tendency to injure another's reputation or character. Libel also includes a publication on radio, audio or video. Even though this would be considered oral, or verbal, communication to someone it is actually considered to be libel because it is published in a transfixed form.

It's libel, not slander, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I don't give a fuck about XC or Dan Metcalf, I'm just telling you that you're wrong, and that speculating about public figures based on however flimsy evidence or rumors does not constitute libel of a public figure.

[CryptoGretzky]

Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ):
...

Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you?   We will just have to see who's laughing at the end.

I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF:

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none.

Shitload of FUDsters posting bullshit AS evidence.   There's a huge difference here.    I am not even saying who's right and who's wrong here.  I am just saying that if you call a public business person a scammer and you don't have proof, then you are definitely slandering.  

Now, how sure those "proof" that you think you have are real and you are not joining the paid slandering campaign?   Please do tell.

You keep using that word ("slander"), I don't think you know what it means...

From ( http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander ):

Slander involves the oral "publication" of a defamatory remark that is heard by another, which injures the subject's reputation or character. Slander can occur through the use of a hand gesture or verbal communication that is not recorded. Libel, on the other hand, is the written "publication" of a defamatory remark that has the tendency to injure another's reputation or character. Libel also includes a publication on radio, audio or video. Even though this would be considered oral, or verbal, communication to someone it is actually considered to be libel because it is published in a transfixed form.

It's libel, not slander, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I don't give a fuck about XC or Dan Metcalf, I'm just telling you that you're wrong, and that speculating about public figures based on however flimsy evidence or rumors does not constitute libel of a public figure.

Hey, I am not a lawyer and not claiming to be.   I am just telling you that people have been sued before for shit like this.    Since you seems to be a lawyer or working to be one, are you giving us LEGAL OPINIONS/ADVICE now?   Please state it in this thread.

[jwinterm]

lol, obviously you're not a lawyer 

Neither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will.

[CryptoGretzky]

lol, obviously you're not a lawyer  

Neither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will.

If you are not a lawyer, then your advice is worth just as much as mine, 2 satoshi like you said.   Let the people that want to play with fire continue their ways.   They just can no longer claim ignorance now.

[jwinterm]

lol, obviously you're not a lawyer  

Neither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will.

If you are not a lawyer, then your advice is worth just as much as mine, 2 satoshi like you said.   Let the people that want to play with fire continue their ways.   They just can no longer claim ignorance now.

lol you're an idiot. Sue me for libel, bitch

[CryptoGretzky]

lol, obviously you're not a lawyer  

Neither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will.

If you are not a lawyer, then your advice is worth just as much as mine, 2 satoshi like you said.   Let the people that want to play with fire continue their ways.   They just can no longer claim ignorance now.

lol you're an idiot. Sue me for libel, bitch

Look in the mirror you lawyer wannabe.   

[CryptoGretzky]

lol, obviously you're not a lawyer  

Neither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will.

If you are not a lawyer, then your advice is worth just as much as mine, 2 satoshi like you said.   Let the people that want to play with fire continue their ways.   They just can no longer claim ignorance now.

lol you're an idiot. Sue me for libel, bitch

Look in the mirror you lawyer wannabe.  

Knowing your rights don't mean you have to be a lawyer to use them.

Knowing your rights also doesn't mean you can abuse it.

[qawzsx]

Uh wait, i though Cryptocurrency are not regulated ? So you can Pump&Dump / scam people with false/misinformation but you can't use your free speech ? So do we have facebook rules all over Internet nowadays ?

Get real, the judges will laugh at you like this.

Are you that stupid and retarded?

Cryptocurrency has nothing to do with that... ))

The most stupid fudder

[adhitthana]

Also look at the bolded portion above. There's no way that people on this forum speculating about evidence presented about other users is going to be treated by a court as libel.

True, but if you read all the threads you will see plenty more than people speculating on evidence.
 

There is significant "evidence" floating around here

There is nothing significant. Seriously. Have a good look at it.

[qawzsx]

I know know ... scamming is legit and Criticism is always bad. Just like in the real world you are trying to silence the whistleblower.. so how dose it feel to be a criminal ?

Are you stupid? That is not criticism what you're doing there.
You have any proof that there is any scam besides your fabricated "proofs"

[adhitthana]

I know know ... scamming is legit and Criticism is always bad. Just like in the real world you are trying to silence the whistleblower.. so how dose it feel to be a criminal ?

Whisteblowers have evidence. They have been on the inside and seen what really went on. That is not the case here. Not even close.
What we have seen here has gone way beyond criticism