The author could be afraid of lawsuits (even if it is true what she writes, that doesn't mean someone can't sue for libel/defamation/retaliate in some fashion).
The only reason libel and violent threat are taken seriously is because people go to so much trouble in preventing them. If libel were made legal, people would think harder about the truthfulness of what they read/hear for example.
> If they're afraid of libel, they're probably engaging in it and should stop.
That may depend on the jurisdiction.
My understanding is that libel laws in the UK, for instance, are horribly broad, and, importantly, don't actually take the truth into account. (From what I've read, I would say it would be more apt to call them "defamation laws", but no one put me in charge.)
So if it were as simple as "just don't print verifiable lies", then I'd tend to agree with you, but given that there are places where you can print verifiable truth and still get slapped with a successful libel suit for it...
I'm not convinced that defamation laws are absolutely abhorrent. It's possible to ruin someone's life with verbal harassment, especially when given amplified powers via social media.
I don't know, but it's a great reason not to expand libel law. Especially in an age where everything is permanently recorded but the sequence of events is increasingly elided.
I personally think the threat of libel (followed by the claim he won't because he's a good person or whatever) is a creepy move if he accepts there's the possibility she might have misinterpreted something.
Or maybe he's just trying to prevent comments of the type "if she's lying, why doesn't he sue her? He probably has something to hide."
You likely have a fundamental misunderstanding of libel law. With libel, truth is the ultimate defense, and somebody's opinion isn't really libelous as long as it's presented as opinion. Unless the facts in the post are made up, which seems unlikely, the writer is fine.
reply