Quote:
Originally Posted by Y2Kvert4me
Bill, serious question...
Do you believe it reasonable that I should be financially liable if I (knowingly) allow someone here to post a factually incorrect opinion regarding a public figure?
A simple yes/no will suffice...But if no, please explain why you feel one publisher should be held responsible, but not another.
 |
I'm not sure that a "factually incorrect opinion" actually exists. Generally, things are either a fact, or an opinion. My opinion may be stupid, far-fetched, not based on reality, or based on some stuff that I believe to be true but actually isn't, but it is not a fact, nor do I believe it can be factually wrong.
IMO, the line gets crossed when a publisher publishes something in such a way that the reader believes they are stating fact, and the story is completely wrong. Think of the local newspaper reporting that you personally robbed the XYZ bank on Main Street last Thursday at 2 pm. A cop reads that, finds out that the XYZ bank was, in fact, robbed at 2 pm last Thursday, so they truck on over to your house, arrest you, and charge you with a felony. You get jailed for a couple of days, go to your arraignment, and post your bail only to find out that for those couple of days you are in jail, word has been spreading like wildfire among your family, friends, business associates, potential customers, etc., that you recently robbed a bank and are currently in jail for it.
Assuming you didn't actually rob XYZ bank, would you be pissed? Would you not want some kind of restitution from the publisher?