I don't think so @gsjackson. Calling someone a sociopath is a judgment of their character. It's not a defamation. One cannot prove or disprove whether someone is a sociopath or not. It's a judgement of character. If I called you a rude asshole or arrogant prick, for example, could you sue me for defamation or libel? Of course not. It's an opinion of one's character, not something that can be proven in a court of law or science lab. You probably cannot find any precedent that someone has ever been sued for libel for calling someone else a "sociopath".gsjackson wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 3:05 amThe definition of defamation (of which libel is the written version) has changed over the decades and is not clear-cut. Where once clearly suggesting that someone is a homosexual would have been defamatory on its face, that is no longer the case. In the current climate of opinion suggesting that someone is a sociopath is about as injurious to reputation as it gets. Whether or not what you say is truthful would be litigated if Rock brought a legal action against you, and presumably professionally-trained psychologists would be brought into court to testify. Your motion for summary judgment -- arguing that your opinion is clearly the truth and the case should be dismissed summarily -- would not succeed, and the case would go to the trier of fact. Your opinion is not obviously the truth.Winston wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2023, 9:31 pmWell I am a straight shooter, that's why I'm telling it like it is. I never lie remember? I'm not turning on him, just complaining about his faults and behavior, especially since there is some smoking gun proof that he's been trolling this forum under troll accounts for years. Didn't you see all the evidence and smoking guns earlier in this thread? Plus he has gaslighted me for years and put me down and even used obvious lies to try to win debates, which is immoral. Hence his dark side is darker than I thought. And I am baffled as to why he never tries to correct his dark side, nor does he show any inner struggle between a good soul and bad soul but seems unified, which is a bad sign, like perfect possession, as exorcists say.
Also what I said is not libel. Libel is not the same as saying something negative. Libel means you spread LIES and damage someone's reputation with those lies. Telling the truth is not libel. This is common knowledge. Didn't you know that? This is basic legal definition. Why are you guys so error-prone?
Such a suit would probably not be successful because you didn't unequivocally state that Rock is a sociopath; you just appeared to be mulling the matter over. But it's certainly defamatory in spirit, if not the letter of the law.
And "smoking gun" proof that Rock is trolling the forum? I've read it, and I wouldn't say it rises to the level of smoking gun. And so what if someone is trolling the forum? It keeps the place alive.
Like you said, I'm a straight shooter and call a person according to their ACTIONS. So if a man steals, he is a thief. If he lies, then he is a liar. If he has no conscience, then he may be a sociopath or just an unfeeling a-hole. Do you see what I mean? Very simple.
Also, you said that the smoking gun about Rock being the trolls isn't that much of a smoking gun. However, it sort of is, because it's the kind of thing that in a Colombo TV episode, would cause the guilty one to run away and try to escape or pull out a gun at the end, because he or she has been caught. lol. So it would be a device plot in a detective series that would cause the guilty party to try to flee or pull out a gun. lol. You know what I mean? You've seen many TV shows so you know what I mean I'm sure. lol