Hacker News Reader

Comment by abvdasker | Hacker News Reader

I tend to believe the Newsweek article because a reputable journalistic source of that caliber would not run a story like that unless they had enough evidence to prove it. Because this guy is not a public persona they would probably otherwise be guilty of libel.

EDIT: As gamblor956 pointed out they would be "liable" rather than "guilty". It does sound like he may have a case though, especially if Newsweek is wrong.

View on HN

Newsweek is not guilty of libel or defamation because those are torts for which criminal "guilt" is meaningless. Newsweek would not be liable for libel or defamation because being labeled the creator of Bitcoin is generally not something that would harm one's reputation.

Libel or defamation claims are generally applicable where one person claims another person did some heinous act, like rape, or a felony, and told other people about it. Some statements, like accusing another person of rape are considered so "heinous" that to win, all the plaintiff has to do is prove the statement was made, in which case the burden of proof shifts to the defendant, who must now prove the accuracy of the statement. Depending on the nature of what was actually said, the defendant's burden may range from simply proving that their statement was reasonable based on the facts to proving that what they said is verifiably true. (And note: not a criminal case, so: proof on either side simply means more likely than not.)

Nit: you appear to be describing per se defamation (accusations of heinous actions), but this is just a small subset of all defamation claims. So long as damages are incurred, false statements of fact can and do routinely incur liability, turning on the credibility of the statements, the recklessness (or deliberate deceptive intent) with which they're made, &c.

It's definitely not the case that a newsmagazine would be in the clear simply because designing Bitcoin isn't a crime (although other factors probably do rule defamation out).

> I tend to believe the Newsweek article because a reputable journalistic source of that caliber would not run a story like that unless they had enough evidence to prove it.

This is irony, right?

irony (noun): the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

Um, remember Newsweek's under different management. See my other post nearby.

And it's not "guilty of" libel; it's more like "liable for defamation."

Both 'libel' and 'liable' are real legal words.

Libel refers to written/printed/online defamatory statements [1] - as opposed to slander, which is spoken defamation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Libel

I believe declan is referring to the fact that libel, being a civil tort, exposes one to be liable for defamation, not guilty of it (being that it's not criminal).

Yep. My point is that criminal libel no longer exists in the United States, so you can't be "guilty of libel."

You can held liable for libel, but that's an awkward phrasing, so "liable for defamation" is broader and better.

I tend to disbelieve the Newsweek article because I read it, and it stank.

If the reporter is professing an opinion that Dorian is Satoshi based on their reading of the facts as they saw them, then it would be very difficult to claim this as libellous unless you could also prove that it was both false and an injurious thing to accuse someone of, in and of itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com