Here is a word to the wise from a former journalist on how to avoid committing libel/slander on any public forum.
Please remember to add these few crucial words to any statements that are critical of others: IN MY OPINION.
As long as you attach that phrase, you are almost certainly preventing any legal threat letters from attorneys.
Use the phrase repeatedly and attach it to any sentence you write that could be considered a negative statement.
The First Amendment protects personal opinion, but when you don't say it is an opinion, your written statements are legally considered published facts.
Josh Yoder could have avoided the challenge from TWC's attorney if he had just written those three words in his X post. The attorney specifically asked Yoder for the "facts" backing his words.
I agree, he should have included those 3 words. What if he supplies the facts and backs them up? The attorney may be on dangerous ground him or her self. (Just asking for a friend). Words.
Not a lawyer, although I took a semester of business law at LSU, so I'm almost a lawyer. :-/
To avoid tiring repetition of "in my opinion", there are other alternatives:
Various sources are reporting...
Some (people) are saying...
I'm not saying it happened, but what if it happened that....
I heard....
Or repeat the accusation with attribution to whoever made it, even if they are nameless or don't really exist. NYT likes to attribute to "well-place sources in the DOJ", or "High-level sources in the White House", or such.
This is bullet-proof so long at the one being accused is a public figure. It would take a lawsuit destined to fail to force revealing of the identity of the source. IOW, if the source doesn't actually exist, no one will ever know. Or if they are lying, they can't be held to account.
Obviously this allows scurrilous and baseless accusations, and empowers those w/ no integrity. For these reasons, Justice Thomas is lobbying inside the Supreme Court to revisit NYT v Sullivan.
Thx. I have a book all ready to go but have been hemming and hawing over publishing it due to the "tell-all" parts. That certainly clears it up nicely.
Here is a word to the wise from a former journalist on how to avoid committing libel/slander on any public forum.
Please remember to add these few crucial words to any statements that are critical of others: IN MY OPINION.
As long as you attach that phrase, you are almost certainly preventing any legal threat letters from attorneys.
Use the phrase repeatedly and attach it to any sentence you write that could be considered a negative statement.
The First Amendment protects personal opinion, but when you don't say it is an opinion, your written statements are legally considered published facts.
Be careful in your criticisms.
good advice. But I have learned much about defamation over the last three years.
True; defamation is whole 'nother ball of wax.
I’m actually stunned. Are you saying Twc is in part being operated by the CIA?
Like what?
So he should say, paraphrasing the Bard, “in my opinion these are tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury signifying nothing”.
Not that they won't try anyway (In my arrogant opinion :)
Josh Yoder could have avoided the challenge from TWC's attorney if he had just written those three words in his X post. The attorney specifically asked Yoder for the "facts" backing his words.
I agree, he should have included those 3 words. What if he supplies the facts and backs them up? The attorney may be on dangerous ground him or her self. (Just asking for a friend). Words.
😆
I use the word, “if” as in, ‘if” this is the case, then…. Will that work?
Depends what the definition of “if” is.
Not a lawyer, although I took a semester of business law at LSU, so I'm almost a lawyer. :-/
To avoid tiring repetition of "in my opinion", there are other alternatives:
Various sources are reporting...
Some (people) are saying...
I'm not saying it happened, but what if it happened that....
I heard....
Or repeat the accusation with attribution to whoever made it, even if they are nameless or don't really exist. NYT likes to attribute to "well-place sources in the DOJ", or "High-level sources in the White House", or such.
This is bullet-proof so long at the one being accused is a public figure. It would take a lawsuit destined to fail to force revealing of the identity of the source. IOW, if the source doesn't actually exist, no one will ever know. Or if they are lying, they can't be held to account.
Obviously this allows scurrilous and baseless accusations, and empowers those w/ no integrity. For these reasons, Justice Thomas is lobbying inside the Supreme Court to revisit NYT v Sullivan.
Thx. I have a book all ready to go but have been hemming and hawing over publishing it due to the "tell-all" parts. That certainly clears it up nicely.
I feel better about it already!
Thank you for adding that here. 🥰🐈⬛🐈⬛🐈⬛
Best of luck with your book!