A false statement of fact. Nothing val said even comes close to going beyond the expression of an opinion. A subjective judgement about the quality of an individuals contributions is not a statement of fact.
Also, unless bernie sanders is really bernie sanders, you'd have a tough time establishing that he was specifically identified, especially if the real name behind the account is not widely known.
I kind of agree with you in this respect. I do not see anything libel about @val's statement. I can also confirm that @berniesanders the user on steemit.com is not in fact "Bernie Sanders" the politician.
However, that does not change the fact that @val was acting recklessly, irresponsibly and in an uninformed manner which is not in line with being part of Steemit, Inc. or @dan's assistant.
Almost everything someone speaks or writes can be seen as an opinion, but if you stopped with that, then there would be no such thing as defamation (libel or slander). The key is whether there is any statement of fact that can be verified objectively. The statement that NGC is not doing any good in terms of curation is a statement of fact, because it is verifiably true or false. I presented evidence that the statement was false. Anyone would be free to provide evidence to the contrary. I don't know where you live, but what I provided was sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on that point and get me to any jury in the United States. What a jury would do, I don't know, particularly since damages are not clear here, but it is "irresponsible" to suggest that this is not at least a colorable claim. Beyond that, I won't beat a dead horse, because @val has apologized and so has @ned. The larger point was the team's lack of communication and systematic problems in that area.
A jury wouldnt do anything, because it would never get in front of one. Cases like this are summarily dismissed all the time... its practically the text book bad libel case.
The statement that NGC is not doing any good is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of subjective opinion. You might think his curation is good, others might think it is bad. That is the very definition of subjectivity.
An objective statement: in 1992, jason broke into my house and had sex with my labrador retriever.
A subjective statement: Jason has not done any good for animals.
An objective statement: NGC broke into the server room and took a dump in the diskdrive of one of the servers
A subjective statement: NGC has not done any good for steemit. He is only interested in money.
The difference is pretty clear, and something anyone who practiced any type of law even briefly would understand.
Note that the objective statements are.... well, objective. They do not require a subjective opinion about who or what is good. I either had sex with that labador retriever, or i didnt.
Again, your statements make me doubt your assertion that you are an attorney, or ever were (I, incidentally, am a practicing attorney). Because this is the very first thing you learn about defamation law.
We're out of comment space on this thread; I was not able to reply to your later comment. If you don't see that statement as objectively verifiable, then you missed the point that 351 other voters saw pretty clearly. Your conclusion is subjective and I respect you for it, but the only one upvoting it was you. A jury would be selected from members of the community and they have spoken quite clearly as to a potential reasonable person standard. Perhaps it is unfair to extend their overall support to this suggestion, since there were other aspects to my post, but clearly there was a large representation of support from people who could have disagreed with any of the things I had written, but up against 351 upvotes, I can count the number of dissenters on one hand. Therefore, your analysis does not seem particularly objective.
Also, FYI, the reasonable person standard is something you apply to a subjective, not an objective, statement or belief. Although the reasonable person standard is objective in and of itself, its entire purpose is to take a subjective notion (like state of mind) and allow a court to apply an objective yardstick to it. So we can't really tell what Joe Defendant was thinking when he did whatever it was that he did, but we could speculate as to what a reasonable person in joe's shoes might be thinking.
In defamation law, we apply a reasonable person standard (at least in some cases) to whether the defendant knew his statements were false, but we cannot apply that standard to the actual truth or falsehood of the statements themselves. If its necessary to apply the reaonable person standard to evaluate the truth or falsehood of a specific statement, that statement must, in fact, be a subjective statement. It is not sufficient to show that a reasonable person would believe the defendant's statements to be false. Because, as much as it might pain you, in the US, unreasonable people are entitled to express their opinions too. The plaintiff has to show that the statements were false as a objective matter of fact.
This probably sounds incredibly pedantic to most readers and complicated to most readers, but it is something one would expect someone who graduated law school and passed the bar to know.
also ftr,
My analysis is based on the law, and is entirely objective. You are using a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. Just because you get 351 people to (presumably) vote for your manifestly false legal notions about defamation does not make those notions correct, or transform an opinion into a fact.
Again, i will repeat what i have repeated multiple times itt. This would never be allowed in front of a jury. The fact that you do not understand this makes me, an attorney with significant amount of experience and knowledge of civ procedure, think you are not being honest about your credentials.
(incidentally, if the reader is interested in a discussion of what specifically qualifies as an opinion or fact, he can check 497 us 1, 376 U.S. 254 (times v sullivan), 882 N.E.2d 596 (rose vs hollinger) the list could go on and on. The protection of "fair comment" has its roots in english common law.
Whether your 351 voters agree that it is objectively verifiable means nothing, there is a clear legal standard, with significant precedent, on what constitues an objectively verifiable statement and thus actionable liable. No one with even the first year of law school under their belt would think that Val's statements were there.
I think it is deeply regretable that some whales, as well as some others, have supported what is an obvious and transparent attempt to use the threat of a lawsuit to stifle the expression of an unfavorable opinion.