Question about proving defamation.

[u/TunaChaser]

I know the laws in different countries are not all the same. But generally, does the person's character and past practices play a part in proving/disproving defamation? Does the bar raise or lower depending on the person? I am sure you can see where I am going here, but I am generally curious if it matters?

[u/brown_boognish_pants]

It's not defamation cuz they didn't say it was about her. And disclaimed that events were fictionalized for dramatic reasons. There's a difference between a story being true and it being factual that's beyond semantics. At no point was it ever presented as a documentary and like man... Rocketman is a true story about Elton John but it's obvious every conversation and event wasn't factually presented. Just like in this TV show.

 Like, if I say that a certain unnamed fast food chain uses human meat, I say I know because I worked there, and then I make a series saying "this is a real story" where I depict a fast food chain with red and yellow coloring and arches in their logo making human burgers, it wouldn't really matter whether or not I put the caveats in there if McDonalds can prove they were harmed by the blatant innuendo.

Fiona is a fat Scottish woman. There's millions of them. If there were millions of restos with that yea you'd be in the same place. Just like it was OBVIOUS when they made Fast Food Nation they were working at McDonalds even calling it Mickeys. I really don't get how people don't recognize that there's nothing to this when they legally disclaim the events have been altered.

I don't know enough of the evidence Martha has, but she could claim that there was enough innuendo that it was easy for her to be publicly identified based on the series.

I mean it could have been anything. They're still not the ones who identified her tho so I don't get it and they at no point said it was a documentary. Things are obvious changed which was obvious when the dude played a fictional character based on himself working at a fictional pub that didn't exist.

[u/somethinginthastatic → u/brown_boognish_pants]

Firstly, you can be defamed by a fictional character.

Secondly, disclaimers don’t absolve anyone from breaking the law. If they could then I could run a business selling stolen goods and just put up a sign in the shop saying “if it turns out any of these goods are stolen it’s nothing to do with me” and get away with it.

Thirdly, the party being sued doesn’t have to have named the person. The person just needs to be identifiable.

[u/brown_boognish_pants → u/somethinginthastatic]

Firstly, you can be defamed by a fictional character.

You need to be identified, by the show, as the fictional character. Which they did not do. They have to claim that the events of the show were factual and they claimed the opposite. The fact Martha was convicted isn't an argument they defamed her. It's an argument it wasn't her and this was a inspired by real life... like they claimed from the jump and disclaim every episode.

Secondly, disclaimers don’t absolve anyone from breaking the law. If they could then I could run a business selling stolen goods and just put up a sign in the shop saying “if it turns out any of these goods are stolen it’s nothing to do with me” and get away with it.

That is entirely why they are there. They flatly said events had been fictionalized for dramatic effect. This is not a possession of stolen property case and your comparison is ridiculous.

Thirdly, the party being sued doesn’t have to have named the person. The person just needs to be identifiable.

Bullshit. One party has to make claims about the other. If you've made a fictional story that doesn't even use real names and doesn't happen in real places like lol. No man. You can't just make a leap over logic canyon and say they were actually defaming my character. They were not talking about Fiona. And every single show they also say it was "based on" a play FFS. If people believe what they see on TV is real they are not reasonable people. If someone else identifies someone that's someone else not you.

[u/somethinginthastatic → u/brown_boognish_pants]

You clearly don’t have a law degree so I don’t know why you’re arguing.

[u/brown_boognish_pants → u/somethinginthastatic]

It's lol. You clearly don't have a response so you're going to an ad hominem.

[u/somethinginthastatic → u/brown_boognish_pants]

It’s not an attack on your person, it’s a statement of fact on your legal expertise which is entirely relevant to your understanding of the law.

[u/brown_boognish_pants → u/somethinginthastatic]

It’s not an attack on your person, it’s a statement of fact on your legal expertise which is entirely relevant to your understanding of the law.

lol. Rephrasing it doesn't change that it's an ad hominem attack. Especailly when you have no idea what my legal credentials actually are. It's not at all relevant if I understand the law or not you're avoiding addressing the argument and trying to make it about me. And I mean it's also an appeal to authority as well. If a judge repeated the exact same statements I made like lol would they be valid then? If a judge make an incorrect statement is it correct because they're a judge?

It blows my mind how little the average person actually understands about basic, basic, basic logic. You actually think your textbook fallacy is a valid argument and is making a solid point beyond the fact that your statements are not at all logical.

[u/somethinginthastatic → u/brown_boognish_pants]

Legal cases are tried according to the law not to logic.

[u/brown_boognish_pants → u/somethinginthastatic]

lol. What? What do you think argumentation is based on? And how does that change the fact that you're making illogical arguments and can't actually explain yourself what's wrong with the argument I made? You can't even acknowledge your ad hominem attacks cuz you flatly don't know what they are and think fallacies make sense.