Re:Elon Musk’s ‘pedo guy’ defamation case is going to trial
by buchanan on Sunday May 12, 2019 @02:38AM
(#19890531)
> Publishing for purpose of defamation is communicating the message to another person by any means.
So, even if buzzfeed had not published to their website, Musk had already published to buzzfeed. Interesting !
Publishing for purpose of defamation is communicating the message to another person by any means.
> If not, I would have thought then that the libel would be on buzzfeed side, for publishing unsubstantiated rumors
BuzzFeed published true facts, to wit, that Elon Musk had mailed them certain claims. Falsity being a required element of defamation (whether libel or slander), their publication can not be defamatory.
> if they had caveat with "Musk emailed this to us..." .
That's not a caveat, it indicates a completely different fact claim; the claim “Joe said X did Y” is a distinct fact claim from the claim “X did Y”.