Film, Media & TV1 min ago
This Isn't A Surprise
US Jury clears US citizen of defaming Brit. Now there's a surprise.
https:/
https:/
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
In the USA the richer you are the more innocent you are ( ie Jacko ).
01:02 Sat 07th Dec 2019
'Mr Musk told the court this week the phrase "pedo guy" was common in South Africa, where he grew up'
apart from well, he would say that, wouldn't he? it's not reported what it's supposed to mean.
It's so common, it's not even listed in Wiki or other websites I've looked at concerning South African colloquia colloquism - oh fudge, slang words.
apart from well, he would say that, wouldn't he? it's not reported what it's supposed to mean.
It's so common, it's not even listed in Wiki or other websites I've looked at concerning South African colloquia colloquism - oh fudge, slang words.
Elon Musk couldn't (or, most certainly, shouldn't) have been found to have defamed Vernon Unsworth by an English jury either.
If I refer to a fellow ABer as a "childmolesting, kitten-strangling, drunken, narcissistic sado-masochist" on this forum, that is most definitely NOT 'defamation', as defined by the Defamation Act 2013.
That's because the Act states "A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant". Since the person I had referred to would be unlikely to go down in the opinion of his family, the people he works with, the people he socialises with or other AB members (who who almost certainly recognise that, while my post was offensive, it wasn't true), the test for 'defamation' would not have been passed. Making grossly offensive statements about someone is NOT the same as 'defamation'.
In an English court the onus would have been upon Mr Unsworth to show that his reputation had suffered serious harm (e.g. by showing that he'd lost work through people believing the accusation). If he couldn't produce such evidence, an action for defamation would automatically have been doomed to failure. Saying (or even proving) that Mr Musk's statement was untrue and/or that it was grossly offensive would be completely irrelevant.
If I refer to a fellow ABer as a "childmolesting, kitten-strangling, drunken, narcissistic sado-masochist" on this forum, that is most definitely NOT 'defamation', as defined by the Defamation Act 2013.
That's because the Act states "A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant". Since the person I had referred to would be unlikely to go down in the opinion of his family, the people he works with, the people he socialises with or other AB members (who who almost certainly recognise that, while my post was offensive, it wasn't true), the test for 'defamation' would not have been passed. Making grossly offensive statements about someone is NOT the same as 'defamation'.
In an English court the onus would have been upon Mr Unsworth to show that his reputation had suffered serious harm (e.g. by showing that he'd lost work through people believing the accusation). If he couldn't produce such evidence, an action for defamation would automatically have been doomed to failure. Saying (or even proving) that Mr Musk's statement was untrue and/or that it was grossly offensive would be completely irrelevant.
I Googled the phrase and there were plenty hits but mainly from the case. There were also definitions but they were making fun of Musk.
I would have thought Musk's side would have been asked to provide evidence confirming how widespread the use of the phrase was when he was growing up.
Does the way the man in the street would interpret the phrase have any bearing I wonder? How many would think that "pedo (sic) man" did not mean a paedophile?
I would have thought Musk's side would have been asked to provide evidence confirming how widespread the use of the phrase was when he was growing up.
Does the way the man in the street would interpret the phrase have any bearing I wonder? How many would think that "pedo (sic) man" did not mean a paedophile?
According to the Wikipedia article about defamation in the US-
"Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:
...
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)"
Saying someone is a paedophile sounds like an allegation or imputation of criminal activity to me.
It could boil down to whether Musk was using the phrase ONLY in the way he said was common in South Africa.
Is ignorance of the other interpretation a defence?
"Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:
...
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)"
Saying someone is a paedophile sounds like an allegation or imputation of criminal activity to me.
It could boil down to whether Musk was using the phrase ONLY in the way he said was common in South Africa.
Is ignorance of the other interpretation a defence?
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Sport1 min ago
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
