The #Niemann v. #Carlsen case is one of a kind in the #chess world. But the US legal system relies heavily on caselaw when deciding these matters. For my chess friends, here’s a 🧵 on a relevant & recent case I found in the same jurisdiction: I present to you Turntine v. Peterson
Turntine v. Peterson is quite similar to Niemann v. Carlsen. It’s a slander & libel case appealed from the Eastern District of Missouri. It’s in the context of a niche competitive sport (dart throwing), where the main defense applied is “Opinion Privilege.”
Opinion privilege is the argument that “there can be no liability under state defamation law for statements of opinion.” This privilege does not apply, however, if a statement “implies an assertion of objective facts,” even if couched as an opinion. (See later link for cites)
Carlsen is likely going to argue that his online statements constitute a general opinion, which does not purport to be fact. This is exactly what Peterson argued in order to get the case dismissed by lower courts… However, upon appeal, the 8th district reversed this dismissal!
The higher court said that to determine if an opinion statement implies an assertion of objective facts, the court must consider the “totality of the circumstances.”
and “whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the statement implies an assertion of objective fact.”
and “whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the statement implies an assertion of objective fact.”
In the case of Niemann v. Carlsen, many causes of action will likely be dismissed outright, such as the anti-trust and civil conspiracy claims. However, the Turntine v. Peterson case gives Niemann’s libel and slander claims against Carlsen some legs!
I hope you enjoyed my 1L legal analysis. Hopefully @HansMokeNiemann’s lawyers make good use by citing this case. Here’s a link to Turntine v. Peterson: ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/05/1…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
