Hacker News Reader

Comment by srcreigh | Hacker News Reader

It’s their own fault if they say something in a review that they can’t prove.

People maintain this sort of blind faith only until they are bitten themselves.

Truth doesn't matter in the US court system, unless both sides are equally well funded. Given that one party owns capital and the other rents, I'd say that seems not too likely.

So you think the landlord can just liquidate what you call the capital? Sell the house?

Unless it‘s a large landlord, chances are that the renter is more liquid.

In my experience, the more difficult a landlord is, the more tenants they have.

Real estate you rent out is probably the prime example of Capital, and many who own real estate (without a mortgage on it) certainly aren't working class.

I didn't find a great source on this, but the average landlord in the US seems to own 3 properties. [1]

[1]: https://www.mysmartmove.com/SmartMove/blog/todays-landlord-c...

That’s not the direction that burden of proof goes.

In England and Wales it is.

English courts are notable for requiring the defendant to prove what they said was true. It is common practice for the world’s rich and infamous to take a trip to London whenever they want to chill their critics’ speech:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about English libel law, I think a bit too strict but wouldn't want to lose it all - but surely libel tourism just shouldn't be allowed? Is it just too hard to stop without blocking legitimate claims too?

edit: I read the rest of that Wikipedia article, seems a decade ago something was done to at least reduce it -

"On January 1st, 2014 the Defamation Act 2013 came into force, requiring plaintiffs who bring actions in the courts of England and Wales alleging libel by defendants who do not live in Europe to demonstrate that the court is the most appropriate place to bring the action. Serious harm to an individual's reputation or serious financial harm to a corporation must also be proven. Good faith belief that a disclosure was in the public interest was made a defense."

I don’t know enough to answer your questions but the McLibel case is another good entry on the subject:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case

That sounds....reasonable ? Not the tourism part but the fact one comitting suspected libel needs to use actual facts or else they are guilty of it ?

It’s not about whether they need to use actual facts, it’s about which side needs to prove whether or not they’re using actual facts.

Why would one suing for slander need to that whatever slanderer invented he didn't do ?

That puts unreasonable level of burden on one being slandered (i.e. the victim) and would allow one doing the slander just make up stuff that is very hard to prove that the victim didn't do.

It is in most places that aren't USA

Reply on news.ycombinator.com