Question I wonder

[Still Kicking]

Yes, courts are included. However, the truth is what the court decides to be the truth.

So speech is covered by the First Amendment if you can prove in court your statements are true?

 

[tarponchik]

So speech is covered by the First Amendment if you can prove in court your statements are true?

Your speech is covered even if it is a lie (but remember, you take an oath before you talk in court). But if they prove that your truth is not true (you can be honestly mistaken after all, or Macavity proves he wasn't there), then you are in trouble. Not for the sheer fact that you spoke, this is still protected, but because your untruth damaged someone's reputation and caused financial losses.

 

[Still Kicking]

Your speech is covered even if it is a lie (but remember, you take an oath before you talk in court). But if they prove that your truth is not true (you can be honestly mistaken after all, or Macavity proves he wasn't there), then you are in trouble. Not for the sheer fact that you spoke, this is still protected, but because your untruth damaged someone's reputation and caused financial losses.

If you can show you stated a fact - not an opinion - that's an absolute defense as covered by the 1A free speech clause.

But even if you are honestly mistaken, it's protected First Amendment speech under NY Times vs Sullivan.

 

[boulderjohn]

Truth is almost always a defense in a defamation case.

I used to teach journalism, and our text said that a difference could hinge upon a couple of things. If you learned that your next door neighbor was a bedwetter and published that, truth might not be a defense. If this is a private citizen, the public had no need to know about it, and your motivation in publishing it was clearly malicious, then truth would not be a defense.

 

[The Chairman]

Do you jump in or let it slide to avoid litigation?

ScubaBoard has been sued twice, and one of the suits included "1 to 100 Does". They were pissed that we talked about a death on their boat and regarded it as Tortious Interference. Ultimately, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

So, while many people threaten to sue, it rarely happens and, in the end, you're allowed to express your opinion and/or state facts about any incident. There's even a law protecting your right to do that. We even have a "Thumbs Down" sub-forum should you want to vent your spleen, so to speak.

However, everyone has bad days. You, me, the boats, and the crew all make mistakes. I hesitate to pass judgement on a dive op for a problem but understand that it's normal human nature to do so. The beauty of ScubaBoard, is that we can aggregate our experiences and maybe figure out which is the most reliable charter. That can't happen if you're afraid of posting about your negative (or positive) experiences.

 

[arew+4]

Unless I have had very recent experience with an operator that had seriously unsafe equipment and or procedures, I would simply state something like "I have used operator X in the past but much prefer operator Z, and this is why."

 

[tarponchik]

If you can show you stated a fact - not an opinion - that's an absolute defense as covered by the 1A free speech clause.

But even if you are honestly mistaken, it's protected First Amendment speech under NY Times vs Sullivan.

Your opponent may have a better lawyer, so the court can dispute your facts.

 

[Eric802]

Irrelevant First Amendment arguments aside, opinions aren’t defamatory. You can post opinions all day long and you won’t get sued. Outright lying would be unwise; saying “I wouldn’t use that dive op, I don’t think they’re safe based on this experience I had…” is fine, but making up a false story about “The captain is a drunk and the DM likes to sexually assault marine life” could cause problems.

 

[Racer_X]

There are VERY narrow exceptions to the First Amendment. I highly recommend following the first amendment on twitter (if you're so inclined) and you'll get the best possible answers. With citations. I believe "the first amendment" is run out of cornell law school.

I won't comment on the arguments here, but I've seen them before, and that's the best spot I've found for clarification on all of these arguments. I will say just because the other side doesn't have a case, doesn't mean you won't get sued.

 

[CosbySweater]

We have good operations in South Florida and BAD operations that I refuse to ever (ever) use again. Sit back and keep quiet or...

I think as long as you share your experiences accurately and point to specifics about why you don’t like an operation then you’re good. That type of information is very valuable. It provides a data point for others to make informed decisions.

Without that type of open discussion, bad operators continue to be bad operators and the community as a whole is worse off.