in reply to Re: brightcloud.com - for those who like a touch of venom with their snake oil
in thread brightcloud.com - for those who like a touch of venom with their snake oil

If jurisdiction landed in the UK, then I believe that would work in syphilis's favor: "Under American libel law, a public figure who claims to have been libelled must prove that the statements in question are defamatory, that they are false, and that they were made with actual malice. Furthermore, reliance on reliable sources (even if they prove false) is a valid defence. In contrast, English libel law requires only that the claimant show that the statements are defamatory. The burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove that the statements were substantially true, and reliance on sources is irrelevant".

Source: Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt. Note that that court case deals with denying certain horrific events occurred during WWII.

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
My deviantART gallery


Comment on Re^2: brightcloud.com - for those who like a touch of venom with their snake oil
Re^3: brightcloud.com - for those who like a touch of venom with their snake oil
by davido (Archbishop) on Aug 14, 2013 at 00:07 UTC

    My US armchair attorney senses want to ask the question, "What are his damages?" If there are no quantifiable damages (being mad doesn't count), there's no just compensation to seek.


    Dave

      Time and stress. Not a lot for a monetary reward there, but that may be enough to get Brightcloud to commit to doing better (or at least being very careful with syphilis's site). The SysAdmin may have a case, though I'm guessing that would be contract law, so maybe not (probably some verbiage about false positives in the contract to cover it).

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
      My deviantART gallery