this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
520 points (98.5% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
2207 readers
281 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"That's ridiculous, slander is spoken, libel is written!"
There's no legal distinction, it's only defamation.
Fun fact. At least through the early 1800s, the First Amendment did not protect you from criminal defamation no matter how truthful your words were.
People v Croswell. A reporter, Croswell, discovered that Jefferson was paying a reporter to attack Adams and call Washington a traitor. He wrote an article on it.
Jefferson pressured the NY AG to bring forward charges of defamation. Croswell argued in court that he could not be defaming Jefferson because he had proof the actions occurred. The Court ordered the jury to only base their opinions on whether or not the statements were published. They found him guilty.
He appealed to the NY SC, this time with Hamilton representing him. Hamilton argued that the truth should always be an absolute defense against defamation. After all, it can't be defamation if it's factual. They ruled against him as well.
He appealed to the SCOTUS. Hamilton presented the same arguments: what Croswell wrote were facts, he could prove they were facts, and defamation should only apply to lies. They were split 2-2 which upheld his sentence and de facto prevented truth from applying as a defense to defamation.
While many states enacted laws providing truth as an absolute defense, it wasn't until over a century later that the Constitutional opinion changed and allowed the defense.
I'm pretty sure he was making a movie reference as a joke