Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwtadvice | Hacker News Reader

Meh. I get what you're saying.

To be very fair I've called out when libelous pictures are posted of Clinton. I consider anything that makes a candidate look confused or stupid or ineffective politically loaded, damaging to reputation (in the context of an election) and therefore libelous.

His quote had nothing to do with his policy (which I agree is as vacuuous as Clinton's). He was talking about attribution. Separate topic.

Regarding "deflection technique" I don't expect Ars to come up with a uniform policy. I do expect them to have standards (other than number of pages) to evaluate criteria by. The author of the article clearly doesn't. This is what I intended to say and I fully admit that I didn't say it clearly before.

View on HN

>I consider anything that makes a candidate look confused or stupid or ineffective politically loaded, damaging to reputation (in the context of an election) and therefore libelous.

The you are clearly misinformed as to the nature, facts, and purpose of libel law, and it would be a mistake for anyone to believe what you have to say on the matter.

Using an unflattering picture or depiction cannot be libel. Making a false statements (an in the case of public figures, such as presidential candidates) those statements must be made with "actual malice" or be published with a reckless disregard for the truth. N.B. I am not a lawyer.

Seems to be on the same line as this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12748759

It's a mistake to take everything everyone says as legalese.

I mean these terms in the vernacular sense.

It seems to me that you are trying to pick a very technical fight in a forum where it is not suited. Neither you nor I are lawyers and this is not a courtroom.

Do you understand what I mean by libelous?

It seems you are intent on using the term "libel" which carries a very specific and technical meaning. As best as I can parse, you mean to say they chose a deliberately unflattering picture. I suppose I understand what you are going for, but you are not doing yourself any favors by using a term that has a very specific meaning in a non-standard manner and expecting people to understand that you are using that word in a non-standard manner.

As the use of the term completely derailed the thread into unproductive and off-topic territory, I acknowledge that my uncareful use of it has done me no favors and invited a variety of "conversation noise."

I find it unfortunate that conversations can be and are derailed so effectively this way. I'll try to avoid the term in the future when speaking about both Clinton, Trump and others.

I edited the top comment to reflect this.

To be libelous, it must not merely be damaging to reputation, but also concern a matter of fact and be a maliciously false representation on that matter of fact.

You could fairly describe the picture in the article as mocking, but not libelous.

I agree that you could argue one interpretation over the other (as would happen in a courtroom).

I suppose, since we don't want to keep arguing, that it will remain unresolved.

Thankfully it appears you understand my use of the term.

I appreciate that you don't want to keep arguing this, but the matter certainly is not "unsolved". Libel is a specific term with specific meaning, and you are using it to mean something different. There is no common vernacular usage of libel that means "unflattering statement/depiction".

Or to put it another way, you're the only person who thinks it's unsolved, everybody else understands the meaning of libel and how you're using the term incorrectly. If you truly don't want to argue this, you should just accept that and move on.

See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12748805

I've changed the original wording.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com