> How exactly are you supposed to prove that an opinion was honestly held?
>> You don't in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. What needs to be shown is that the poster posted a statement that he knew was false.
Except this isn't about the US and the person you're responding to hasn't mentioned the US. This is about a lawsuit in New Zealand, where the burden of proof is not on the plaintiff, it's on the defendant to prove that they sincerely believed what they wrote. Hence the question.
> Except that the article is about the decision of a US Federal judge. There is no court case filed in NZ, and NZ law doesn't apply in the US.
No, the article is about a New Zealand company using the discovery process of a lawsuit in CA to get the names of people they will, by their own admission, sue in New Zealand court.
From TFA:
"In court, Zuru said it plans to file a defamation lawsuit in New Zealand against whoever posted these on Glassdoor, once their identities are revealed."
So, no, the rules for burden of proof in the US have nothing to do with this.
> From TFA: "In court, Zuru said it plans to file a defamation lawsuit in New Zealand against whoever posted these on Glassdoor, once their identities are revealed."
That quote clearly says there is no lawsuit in NZ.
> So, no, the rules for burden of proof in the US have nothing to do with this.
They do, since it should be clear they were not applied by Tse. That is the issue here, not an unfiled suit in another country, when the US federal courts have jurisdiction over the unmasking process.
> They do, since it should be clear they were not applied by Tse. That is the issue here, not an unfiled suit in another country, when the US federal courts have jurisdiction over the unmasking process.
I mean, you can cling to whatever fantasy you want, but it doesn't change the article:
"Even though the ruling occurred in a U.S. federal court, Judge Tse said he made the ruling based on New Zealand law, as Zuru intends to sue in that jurisdiction. Therefore, the court's ruling was decided based on New Zealand law's definition of defamation, and not the U.S. legal definition."
A US judge used New Zealand law to rule in favor of giving a New Zealand company data it plans on using to sue people for defamation in a New Zealand court. So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof.
The article goes even further to say "In other words, Glassdoor shouldn't be ordered to turn over 'anonymous' user data in any case solely based on U.S. law." And yet, this is exactly how Tse ruled.
So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof.
> I mean, you can cling to whatever fantasy you want, but it doesn't change the article:
It's not a fantasy but a recognition that Tse was incorrect. The US SC has held that both online speech and anonymous speech are protected by the First Amendment.
> The article goes even further to say "In other words, Glassdoor shouldn't be ordered to turn over 'anonymous' user data in any case solely based on U.S. law." And yet, this is exactly how Tse ruled.
The question you responded to was asking how one proves sincere intent. You said you don't need to in the US. This article is about a US judge basing a decision on a phenomenon in New Zealand law regarding a New Zealand company wanting information to sue people in New Zealand; any answer limited to "yeah, that doesn't apply in US law" doesn't answer the question.
So, for anyone with experience in New Zealand law: when this New Zealand company sues people in a New Zealand court of law (as is discussed in TFA), how would the defendants go about proving they sincerely believed something?
>> You don't in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. What needs to be shown is that the poster posted a statement that he knew was false.
Except this isn't about the US and the person you're responding to hasn't mentioned the US. This is about a lawsuit in New Zealand, where the burden of proof is not on the plaintiff, it's on the defendant to prove that they sincerely believed what they wrote. Hence the question.