Unlike many countries, the burden of proof for defamation is on the accuser. You must prove at some bar (based on factors like celebrity status) that the other party spoke false information, and then in most cases you must also prove ill intent. You can’t usually win a defamation suit against anti-vaxers (for example) because they genuinely believe they’re saving people by spreading the misinformation they think is true.
We’re a VERY tough country for that kind of suit, and the First Amendment is cited as the reason.
I don’t know what you mean by anti vaxxers. What defamation cases arr you talking about?
As for the rest of it, defamation laws vary from state to state, and defamation very much is an exception to to the first ammendment.
I think you are a bit confused about how defamation cases work.
If your comments are not protected if they are defamatory. The decision is made in the trial, not “before” the trial.
The defamatory statements are presumed to be untrue, it is for defendant to prove that they are not true.
If you go on record as saying something defamatory, and it can be shown be harmful to reputation, then you HAVE to be able to prove it is true.
Otherwise people could just accuse anyone of anything all the time, and that would be utter chaos.
You can’t prove a negative.
So it you accuse me of molesting my patients, and I have beverage molested my patients, how can one prove it or doesn’t make sense.
Here are the tests for defamation in Alabama:
To be defamatory:
The statements must not be true but presented as facts (not opinions).
The statements must be published or spoken.
The statements must be read or heard by others.
The statements must cause injury to your reputation.
The statements are not protected under any kind of legal privilege.
If this black mayor guy is accusing others of racism, then they can sue him.
Obviously accusing government employees of racism and refusing to follow orders will harm their reputation.
There’s Tests to decide that, but it’s pretty obviously the case here.
The mayor has presented his opinions as facts. That is also clear.
Whether his remark are true or not would be for the court to decide, and would clearly be what the court case would be about.
The mayor has damaged to reputation of these people - and he will be found to have defamed them unless HE can prove his statements were true because HE is the one who made them.
Truth is a (the!) defence for defamation.
The last compounding factor would be whether he has a special kind of legal privelage. I don’t know how it works for them in that regard.
Sorry, but the longer I think about this the more I think it is you who are deeply confused about defamation law.
Instead of arguing over something well-established and well-documented, I’m just going to leave an NPR explanation of it for you or others to read at your leisure.
It’s not naming them, it’s repeating a claim, which, if not proven would be defamation.
Are black politicians immune from lying?
Your understanding of US law is slightly off.
Unlike many countries, the burden of proof for defamation is on the accuser. You must prove at some bar (based on factors like celebrity status) that the other party spoke false information, and then in most cases you must also prove ill intent. You can’t usually win a defamation suit against anti-vaxers (for example) because they genuinely believe they’re saving people by spreading the misinformation they think is true.
We’re a VERY tough country for that kind of suit, and the First Amendment is cited as the reason.
I don’t know what you mean by anti vaxxers. What defamation cases arr you talking about?
As for the rest of it, defamation laws vary from state to state, and defamation very much is an exception to to the first ammendment.
I think you are a bit confused about how defamation cases work.
If your comments are not protected if they are defamatory. The decision is made in the trial, not “before” the trial.
The defamatory statements are presumed to be untrue, it is for defendant to prove that they are not true.
If you go on record as saying something defamatory, and it can be shown be harmful to reputation, then you HAVE to be able to prove it is true.
Otherwise people could just accuse anyone of anything all the time, and that would be utter chaos.
You can’t prove a negative.
So it you accuse me of molesting my patients, and I have beverage molested my patients, how can one prove it or doesn’t make sense.
Here are the tests for defamation in Alabama:
If this black mayor guy is accusing others of racism, then they can sue him.
Obviously accusing government employees of racism and refusing to follow orders will harm their reputation.
There’s Tests to decide that, but it’s pretty obviously the case here.
The mayor has presented his opinions as facts. That is also clear.
Whether his remark are true or not would be for the court to decide, and would clearly be what the court case would be about.
The mayor has damaged to reputation of these people - and he will be found to have defamed them unless HE can prove his statements were true because HE is the one who made them.
Truth is a (the!) defence for defamation.
The last compounding factor would be whether he has a special kind of legal privelage. I don’t know how it works for them in that regard.
Sorry, but the longer I think about this the more I think it is you who are deeply confused about defamation law.
Instead of arguing over something well-established and well-documented, I’m just going to leave an NPR explanation of it for you or others to read at your leisure.
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways#:~:text=In American courts%2C the burden,of proof%2C and typically loses.
It might surprise you, but you can prove a negative in a court of law, and you actually have to in the US for defamation, unlike European libel laws.