Re: Absolute Cheating
[ QUOTE ]
This is not legal advice either: I am indeed saying that it is "riskier" to allege that a poker pro, involved in a poker site from which presumably he makes money, is cheating people at poker at the very poker site with which he is affiliated. It is "riskier" to make that allegation than to allege that some completely unknown person with no public persona and no affiliations with a poker site whatsoever is cheating people at online poker. DUCY? (Haha - I've been waiting to use that one!)
But hey, the truth is always a defense, right?!>!
[/ QUOTE ]
Before they tell us to take it outside, you're forgetting that, at least in the American system (Britain's libel laws are far more plaintiff friendly) the burdens are very different as far as the knowledge of the untruth of the statement depending on the "public figure" status of the subject. Generally, merely negligent accusations against a private figure are actionable,* whereas you have to be "recklessly indifferent" to the truth of a statement with respect to a public figure. (For the non-lawyers, 'reckless indifference' is a term of art which imposes a pretty high burden of proof.)
Now to the extent that you mean it is riskier in that a public figure is likely to be able to demonstrate greater damages if libel is found, I agree with you.
*with some exceptions: e.g an honestly held, though false, belief is not actionable when it is communicated in the form of a reference check, for example.
|