,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Still thinking about Coleman's legal theory. Let's say you own a restaurant. An anonymous reviewer calls it the "worst restaurant ever." Clear hyperbole and opinion, so you lose your defamation case.
But world-famous critic comes in and says same thing? Successful suit. /1
But world-famous critic comes in and says same thing? Successful suit. /1
Coleman argues that influential people can give opinions that are taken as facts, and points out that the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES said that the SPLC "bullies" and "intimidates" people. Now maybe that's a matter of opinion. But people take him seriously. Libel? /2
Coleman might respond that this isn't defamation because it happens to be "true." But how can you know whether it is "true" that someone is a "bully?" Why shouldn't the SPLC sue Jeff Sessions? Or anyone whose opinions it disagrees with? /3
There is no meaningful limit on Coleman's test. Reputable people giving honest opinions can be sued if their targets disagree with those opinions. That slices deep into the bone of free speech. /f
