Albino Boo said:
TrulyBritish said:
Albino Boo said:
There is no smoke without fire is not a defence. If you make a specific allegation then you have to be able to back it up with admissible evidence.
Ok, sounds fair. So is it possible for Digihom to actually win this suit? Just seems odd the court wouldn't account for their behaviour outside of this matter, but then I don't think they've actually done anything that's illegal have they? It's not illegal to "Asset Flip" as far as I know, so unless there's something illegal about them selling under multiple names? I mean, I'd say they're ethically wrong but that's not the same.
To be honest, I have no idea. I dont know the wording of the Arizona law so I don't know how shaded the burden of proof is for the case. The basic principle is that Sterling has to prove that his allegations are true and Digihom have to demonstrate to what degree they have been damaged by the allegations alone and not legitimate criticism.
Not accounting for issues outside the matter in hand is standard principle of English common law for the last 1200 years. It works both ways, someone with history of making false allegations and issuing retractions can be assumed to have made a false allegation again.
Actually, in libel/slander/defamation cases, it's the plaintiff/accuser who must prove that the statements made by the defendant are false. So in this case, Digital Homicide has to prove that it did not lift assets or steal artwork, not the other the way around. Also, DH has to prove that Sterling's statements caused the company harm, and that the statements were made without sufficient fact-checking or verification. In other words, if a judge determines that it's reasonable, based on the information available at the time, for Sterling to believe that DH stole assets, then he or she will likely toss the suit.
Two more things worth mentioning -- First, in at least one example, Sterling corrected one of his stories/videos to reflect the fact that some of the images were sold on Shutterstock, so the allegation that the images in question were taken without permission form the original artist was clarified/corrected. And usually, if a false claim or report is corrected within a timely manner, it's hard to prove libel (of course this depends on a judge's definition of "timely").
And second, I don't know how this will shake out, but it's possible that DH could be considered as what's known as a "limited-purpose public figure" since the company has been very public and outspoken about its spat with Sterling, which could be seen as courting the media limelight. And the standard for proving libel in cases of public figures, limited purpose or otherwise, is VERY hard in the U.S. In addition to the standards listed above, public figures must also prove "malice," i.e. that the person or publication that libeled (or slandered) them did so either knowing the information was false or with reckless disregard for facts, or that there was definitive intent to harm. I don't know that a judge would accept the argument that DH is a limited-purpose public figure, but if it was accepted, then DH's chances of winning, which were already slim, become much, much worse.
