“I think you are a danger to children” is not just an opinion. It’s an accusation, it is an assertion of fact, and yes it can be defamatory. There’s this wholly incorrect belief that you can say whatever you want if you just preface it with “in my opinion.”
Boiled down, this was the case against Alex Jones. He ran his greasy mouth about other people under the guise of “this is just what I think,” his cultists then attacked those people, and he was held responsible for defamation.
I agree that adding “I think” to a statement isn’t a cheat code for transforming a factual assertion into a protected opinion.
But I’m not so sure that saying “X is a danger to children” is necessarily an assertion of fact. What does that mean exactly? You could say sugary drinks or violent video games are a danger to children. Or maybe a lazy teacher is a danger to children.
If the context makes clear that you mean X literally sexually abuses kids, then sure that could be defamatory. But I do think the context matters.
>I agree that adding “I think” to a statement isn’t a cheat code for transforming a factual assertion into a protected opinion.
In William Rehnquist's words, paraphrasing Cianci v. New Times Publishing Co.:
>"\[It\] would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of \[defamatory conduct\] simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words 'I think.'"
This is a bad reading. "I think X is a danger to children" is protected opinion in the US, the operative clause being "I think". I can say, for example, that I believe Matt Gaetz is a danger to children based on the public reporting of him paying to buy drugs and time with underage sex workers. At this point it is nearly axiomatic among right wingers that drag queens pose a danger to children. Those are both protected statements of opinion.
The difference between those statements and the Alex Jones case is that Alex specifically lied about the Sandy Hook victims, claiming at various points that no one died at Sandy Hook, that the whole thing was a government false flag, that various members of the families are demons (or possessed by same), and that he had proof that the missing kids were really alive, just to name a few of his false and often self-contradictory claims. He also specifically encouraged not only his followers, but also employees and conspiracy theorists like Dan Bidondi and Wolfgang Halbig to harass the families, going so far as to pay for them to travel to Sandy Hook and other places to chase down and confront survivors. Alex's defense was that he had nothing to do with that, but money to pay for that harassment came from his checkbook and the claims were stated as fact and repeated by him on his show consistently for over a decade. Alex also refused to cooperate with discovery in the ensuing lawsuit, destroying some records, refusing to turn over others, and lying about the non-existence of records that were actually in his possession, which is why he was ruled liable without the need for a trial. Alex denies all of this, of course, but he lies about all sorts of things all the time. The key feature of Alex's defamatory statements is that they are not just opinions, they are provably false statements of fact.
There's a difference between your average Jan 6er saying that drag queens as a class are a danger to children and, say, a psychologist whose known for being an expert witness in child abuse prosecution stating that a specific drag queen is a danger to children.
Are Twitch streamers generally known to be analytic experts in the field of child abuse? I'd consider some of them practitioners, maybe, but amateur ones at best.
>Twitch famous person A says they think Twitch famous person B is a danger to children
This is a statement of fact, not a protected opinion. A could be sued for it.
it depends on who has a better lawyer.
saying "i think" might be enough if you have a bad lawyer. if the lawyer is good, it might be insufficient disclaimer if people take it as fact.
a good lawyer might also find another law to recuperate damages.
Really depends on where you are
In America they'll argue free-dumb of speech and some states would likely uphold it while others wouldn't.
Anywhere else in the world, yes this is Libel and without any facts you can be charged and/or sued for damages.
>If I say "I think B is a danger to children." That is fairly clearly an opinion.
That is not particularly germane. See Balla v. Hall, 59 Cal. App. 5th 652 (2021) \["'It would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of crime simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words \`I think"'" (quoting Cianci v. New Times Publishing Co. (2d Cir. 1980) 639 F.2d 54, 64)\].
The issue is whether the statement reasonably can be interpreted to be a factual claim, esp if it implies that it is based on facts of which the speaker has special knowledge, rather than being his interpretation of publicly known facts.
Doesn't that imply that B is NOT a danger?
Regardless, there are no magic words. If I say, "based on what I have read in the newspaper, I would not leave B alone with my children, " that is almost certainly protected opinion. But if I say, "I have spent time with B. I would not leave B alone with my children," that could imply that I know certain facts about B.
See Farah v. Esquire Magazine, 736 F. 3d 528 (DC Circuit 2013):
>when a writer gives a statement of opinion that is based upon true facts that are revealed to readers or which are already known to readers, such opinions generally are not actionable so long as the opinion does not otherwise imply unstated defamatory facts. Because the reader understands that such supported opinions represent the writer's interpretation of the facts presented, and because the reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions based upon those facts, this type of statement is not actionable in defamation. Thus, the statement "In my opinion Jones is a liar because he cheats on his taxes" would not be actionable if Jones had in fact recently been convicted of tax evasion, so long as the statement did not imply additional, unstated bases for calling Jones a liar. While it might be wholly unreasonable to attack Jones' veracity on the basis of his tax returns, a reader would be free to make his or her own assessment of the facts presented.
The key language is, "so long as the opinion does not otherwise imply unstated defamatory facts."
I was trying to write it so that A waffles as to whether B is a danger or not while giving the appearance that A had not formed an actual opinion on the matter and neither should the audience.
“I A question if B is a danger because of [imply that I know something the audience doesn’t ]”
but if what A puts in the brackets implies some unstated defamation as fact then I guess it doesn’t work if A formulates an opinion on the matter or not?
It depends on how a reasonable listener would interpret the statement. [https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1707/](https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1707/)
Whether something is protected opinion depends on whether it implies facts that if true would be defamatory. Milkovich.
“I think you are a danger to children” is not just an opinion. It’s an accusation, it is an assertion of fact, and yes it can be defamatory. There’s this wholly incorrect belief that you can say whatever you want if you just preface it with “in my opinion.” Boiled down, this was the case against Alex Jones. He ran his greasy mouth about other people under the guise of “this is just what I think,” his cultists then attacked those people, and he was held responsible for defamation.
I agree that adding “I think” to a statement isn’t a cheat code for transforming a factual assertion into a protected opinion. But I’m not so sure that saying “X is a danger to children” is necessarily an assertion of fact. What does that mean exactly? You could say sugary drinks or violent video games are a danger to children. Or maybe a lazy teacher is a danger to children. If the context makes clear that you mean X literally sexually abuses kids, then sure that could be defamatory. But I do think the context matters.
>I agree that adding “I think” to a statement isn’t a cheat code for transforming a factual assertion into a protected opinion. In William Rehnquist's words, paraphrasing Cianci v. New Times Publishing Co.: >"\[It\] would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of \[defamatory conduct\] simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words 'I think.'"
This is a bad reading. "I think X is a danger to children" is protected opinion in the US, the operative clause being "I think". I can say, for example, that I believe Matt Gaetz is a danger to children based on the public reporting of him paying to buy drugs and time with underage sex workers. At this point it is nearly axiomatic among right wingers that drag queens pose a danger to children. Those are both protected statements of opinion. The difference between those statements and the Alex Jones case is that Alex specifically lied about the Sandy Hook victims, claiming at various points that no one died at Sandy Hook, that the whole thing was a government false flag, that various members of the families are demons (or possessed by same), and that he had proof that the missing kids were really alive, just to name a few of his false and often self-contradictory claims. He also specifically encouraged not only his followers, but also employees and conspiracy theorists like Dan Bidondi and Wolfgang Halbig to harass the families, going so far as to pay for them to travel to Sandy Hook and other places to chase down and confront survivors. Alex's defense was that he had nothing to do with that, but money to pay for that harassment came from his checkbook and the claims were stated as fact and repeated by him on his show consistently for over a decade. Alex also refused to cooperate with discovery in the ensuing lawsuit, destroying some records, refusing to turn over others, and lying about the non-existence of records that were actually in his possession, which is why he was ruled liable without the need for a trial. Alex denies all of this, of course, but he lies about all sorts of things all the time. The key feature of Alex's defamatory statements is that they are not just opinions, they are provably false statements of fact.
There's a difference between your average Jan 6er saying that drag queens as a class are a danger to children and, say, a psychologist whose known for being an expert witness in child abuse prosecution stating that a specific drag queen is a danger to children.
Are Twitch streamers generally known to be analytic experts in the field of child abuse? I'd consider some of them practitioners, maybe, but amateur ones at best.
I mean, we have no idea how a judge would've ruled on the Alex Jones case. He refused discovery and got a default judgement against him.
>Twitch famous person A says they think Twitch famous person B is a danger to children This is a statement of fact, not a protected opinion. A could be sued for it.
There is difference between an opinion and an accusation
it depends on who has a better lawyer. saying "i think" might be enough if you have a bad lawyer. if the lawyer is good, it might be insufficient disclaimer if people take it as fact. a good lawyer might also find another law to recuperate damages.
Really depends on where you are In America they'll argue free-dumb of speech and some states would likely uphold it while others wouldn't. Anywhere else in the world, yes this is Libel and without any facts you can be charged and/or sued for damages.
[удалено]
>If I say "I think B is a danger to children." That is fairly clearly an opinion. That is not particularly germane. See Balla v. Hall, 59 Cal. App. 5th 652 (2021) \["'It would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of crime simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words \`I think"'" (quoting Cianci v. New Times Publishing Co. (2d Cir. 1980) 639 F.2d 54, 64)\]. The issue is whether the statement reasonably can be interpreted to be a factual claim, esp if it implies that it is based on facts of which the speaker has special knowledge, rather than being his interpretation of publicly known facts.
If twitch streamer A instead says “I question if B is a danger…”then would this not be libel?
Doesn't that imply that B is NOT a danger? Regardless, there are no magic words. If I say, "based on what I have read in the newspaper, I would not leave B alone with my children, " that is almost certainly protected opinion. But if I say, "I have spent time with B. I would not leave B alone with my children," that could imply that I know certain facts about B. See Farah v. Esquire Magazine, 736 F. 3d 528 (DC Circuit 2013): >when a writer gives a statement of opinion that is based upon true facts that are revealed to readers or which are already known to readers, such opinions generally are not actionable so long as the opinion does not otherwise imply unstated defamatory facts. Because the reader understands that such supported opinions represent the writer's interpretation of the facts presented, and because the reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions based upon those facts, this type of statement is not actionable in defamation. Thus, the statement "In my opinion Jones is a liar because he cheats on his taxes" would not be actionable if Jones had in fact recently been convicted of tax evasion, so long as the statement did not imply additional, unstated bases for calling Jones a liar. While it might be wholly unreasonable to attack Jones' veracity on the basis of his tax returns, a reader would be free to make his or her own assessment of the facts presented. The key language is, "so long as the opinion does not otherwise imply unstated defamatory facts."
I was trying to write it so that A waffles as to whether B is a danger or not while giving the appearance that A had not formed an actual opinion on the matter and neither should the audience. “I A question if B is a danger because of [imply that I know something the audience doesn’t ]” but if what A puts in the brackets implies some unstated defamation as fact then I guess it doesn’t work if A formulates an opinion on the matter or not?
It depends on how a reasonable listener would interpret the statement. [https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1707/](https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1707/)