> the plaintiffs were required to show that the false statements caused them harm

IIRC, only for public figures.

The bar is far lower for private figures btw. A lot of libel/slander that would pass for public figures (ie: Politicians) are absolutely illegal and would be charged if levied against private figures instead (such as me, or the Sandy Hook victims)

> Notably, I can put up a billboard in my town that says “All of dragontamer’s code is buggy and it makes your computer smell bad”, and we’d be a long way off from you successfully suing me for defamation.

Hmm... I think the bigger issue here is whether the suit would be enough reputational damage to even get to damages. IIRC, there's minimum amounts of damage done before any suit is even considered (me lawyering up would cost more than the reputational damage in that case, so it just wouldn't be worth it).

The bar is set at a certain level of damages that I expect to get awarded (and courts also reject any case where the damages are too low). This is more due to pragmatism / the innate inefficiencies of court cases that make it less likely for all cases to be considered... rather than what is strictly legal or illegal.

IE: Even if we were to make it easier to sue for smaller amounts of reputational damage, no one would do it because of the high costs of lawyers in general (and high costs of a full court case).

Harm is required in all defamation. Public figures additionally must prove “actual malice” on the part of the defendant, which is a term of art distinct from the common usage of “malice”

> Harm is required in all defamation.

Harm is required in _most_ defamation. Some claims are considered "defamation per se", in which they are considered automatically harmful.

- Indications that a person was involved in criminal

- Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious

- Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct

- Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession

https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...

Per se defamation establishes that harm has occurred whether or not it is specifically proved. I was going to well-actually the same comment you did, and instead bided my time to well-actually the predictable response.

At any rate: per se defamation isn't at play in this case.

Much appreciated. I should have spelled this out more directly in my original comment, but this is what I meant about some kinds of harm being more obvious. Defamation per se exists largely to handle cases where harm occurred but it’s tough to point to a specific instance or assign it an easy dollar figure.

But it would naturally lead to lawyers letters and probably your apology and a costs settlement on the steps of the courthouse. The settlement might be zero sum, but you would expect a competent lawyer to advise you to back down gracefully all things being equal, assuming you lacked any evidence for a truth defence.

Oftentimes, the outcome isn't about winning in court. It's about the restitution of the potential harm.

No it wouldn’t. That’s what I’m saying.

It's not what you said. You said successfully suing. Most suits don't go to a win in court, they terminate before that, and terminate in lawyers letters before paperwork hits a court.

I am continuing to assert you're just wrong. I'm not a lawyer btw.

It's honestly pretty hard to work out what you're trying to assert here. The parent commenter is trying, reasonably, to establish the distinction between "lying" and "defamation". It seems like you're saying "being sued is so expensive the distinction doesn't matter". Ok, sure? That doesn't have anything to do with what they're saying, and, in the context of the grandparent comment --- about libel laws being tightened up --- isn't responsive there either.

(A distinctive feature of modern libel law is SLAPP, which permits fee recovery for defamation suits that aren't well-founded, but that works against the I argument I think but am not sure you are trying to make.)

(Pedantic nitpicking) I think you mean anti-SLAPP there. Point being that we want to avoid SLAPP.

If anybody has made it this deep in the thread and has curiosity left to spare, I’d like to recommend https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/ , which is no longer active but whose episodes remain highly valuable in understanding first amendment law.

I think in theory he's still making these, but what you really want to do is subscribe to "Serious Trouble", Ken White's (same guy) podcast with Josh Barro.

Hah. I just mentioned that one in a separate reply to you.

I’d love a world where we continue to get Make No Law episodes, but I’d given up hope after it going dormant for a while.

He's better with Barro than when he's trying to make Legal Radiolab. :)

Curious: when are you guys listening to these podcasts? While driving? While out for a run or something? Certainly not when on the computer right - cause god knows I couldn’t do that kind of multitasking. I’d love to go through the archive of past Ken White podcasts but I don’t know how to make the time for it. Are you listening to them at 2x speed?

I have a 1 month old, so I suddenly have both a ton of time spent driving to the store to get supplies and a ton of time spent just sitting and rocking back and forth.

I don’t think this is the most efficient way to carve out time for podcasts :D

I have a 30 minute one-way commute to the office.

Anyone can sue anyone at any time. I can sue you claiming that this comment you made is defamatory towards me.

I’m saying that the suit wouldn’t end with a settlement or an apology or me doing anything; it would be thrown out for not meeting the standard for defamation. Tort is relatively boring, IMO, but the standards for various suits are well defined and publicly documented.