It hinged on whether "pedo guy" was an actual attempt to brand someone as a pedophile, or whether it was an insult, which, at least in the US, is protected free speech.
Looks like the jury decided the latter.
Looks like the jury decided the latter.
I think this is a very poor result. $190M was obviously excessive, but $0 isn't right either.
The fact that he hired a pro investigator (or at least one who professionally held himself out as one) kind of makes 'reckless' hard to prove.
What the investigator found (nothing in this case) is immaterial. The law should protect people from being defamed on a hunch that may or may not later turn out to be true.
There are only a few defenses to that as an element: "No I didn't," "So what, nobody would actually believe an obvious insult," (that's the one that won) and "It's true." The latter automatically wins the suit if proven, so it makes sense to probe for it among the others.
If I recall from reading a memo/recap of the session yesterday, that exact argument came up.
I'm still shocked he won, mind you. My understanding was that he googled the Thai area in question and read its reputation before making the statement, which sure makes it look like he meant it at face value.
If the question the jury answered was derived from the First Amendment, the outcome could well be different in countries that have defamation laws but not the First Amendment. The demanded sum of $190m is irrelevant to the jury’s decision that there was nothing to award damages for.