Why , yes. Yes I am.
The main difference, of course, is that because Nick leveled an unfounded criminal allegation against a public figure, it rises to the level of slander. Anna's statement does not because there is no evidence that supports Nick claim and reason to suspect that Nick is lying based on his personal prejudices.
| What is defamation, libel and slander? Whether you are the victim of internet defamation or being wrongfully accused of internet defamation, you need to understand the law. In order for a comment, post or article to constitute internet libel, the following elements must typically be met: 1.The first thing you must prove is that the statement constitutes a false statement of fact. A fact is different than an opinion. A fact can be proven true or false. Opinions are typically not actionable as defamation. 2.The false statement of fact must harm your reputation. There are many false statements posted across the internet. In order to constitute libel, a statement must not only be false but must harm you or your company’s reputation and cause harm. 3.The false statement of fact causing harm must be made without adequate due diligence or research into the truthfulness of the statement. Alternatively, plaintiffs often attempt to prove that the false statement of fact was made with full knowledge of its falsity. 4.If the person who is the subject of the false statement of fact is a celebrity or public official, the plaintiff must also prove “malice.” Malice is proven when the person posting the information on the internet intended to do harm or acted with reckless disregard of the truth in making the statements. There is often confusion about the differences between defamation, libel and slander. In many ways, courts treat defamation on the internet similar to off-line defamation. But there are differences which you need to understand when the false statements are made on-line. 1.Defamation: An unprivileged false statement of fact which tends to harm the reputation of a person or company. This is a catch-all term for both libel and slander. 2.Libel: Defamation which is written such as on a web site. Most on-line defamation occurs through libel by posting a web page, comment, bulletin board post, review, rating or blog post. 3.Slander: Defamation that is spoken such as through an transcribed video, podcast or audio file. http://www.traverselegal.com/internet-defamation/defamation-libel-slander/ |
There is no unfounded assumption. Nick, and others, firmly believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles. It is a position not supported by research into the topic. There is ample reason to suspect that Nick's accusation is based on his personal biases and not on actual facts given Nick's known opinions. As always, all Nick has to do prove that he is not lying is to present his proof that Fanning is a child molester.
It was good enough for Nick to accuse a man of pedophilia so why isn't it good enough to accuse Nick of lying?
No, I'm not. Nick hates homosexuals and believes that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I know this to be true of Nick based on his participation on this site. I know from news reports that Fanning is not suspected of being a pedophile. All I have actually done is ask Nick to produce his proof of his allegations. He has not. Again, we are left with two possibilities: a)Nick is a moral bankrupt person who refuses to take his information to the authorities so that a child predictor can be incarcerated or b) Nick does not actually know anything. Which do you think it is? What would be a valid reason for Nick NOT to give his evidence to the police?
Iis this supposed to be evidence? Its a picture. By itself it means nothing. If you want to prove your point answer this question: how old is Ben Masri-Cohen?
