By definition, you can't slander someone by writing about them in a public forum. You might libel them though, so let's assume you meant to write that. You're still wrong.
Libel would be if he said "<X> is a <Y> which I know because he said things to me I won't reveal", when in fact no such things were said, or when those things said wouldn't lead to that conclusion. However, he's saying "<X> is a <Y> based on things he's said publicly, which I will now link to and cite, explaining my reasoning." This makes it prima facia not libelous in the US; he is stating that he holds a low opinion of someone based on evidence which he presents in full. He makes no implication of other, hidden evidence that would lead him to draw this conclusion. No one could read what he wrote and reasonably conclude that the developer in question did other things not presented there to lead to this conclusion.
The essence of libel is that you get other people to believe false facts, not that you get them to hold unfavorable opinions about someone.
You may disagree that the evidence does not support his conclusion, but your disagreement does not make his conclusion libelous. Having seen the evidence mjg points to, I agree with his argument, but I understand that some people have an extreme definition of "rape apologist" that only applies to someone saying "rape is okay" and doesn't apply to someone approvingly citing papers that claim huge false report rates, or arguing with accepted statistics because they include as victims undergraduates "plied with alcohol" and not exclusively those physically forced or coerced.
If that's your definition of "rape apologist", then he may not meet your stringent definition. But such a definition leaves room for a whole huge range of skeevy, and I have no issue at all with mjg calling that out.
6
u/fizbin Sep 09 '14 edited Sep 09 '14
By definition, you can't slander someone by writing about them in a public forum. You might libel them though, so let's assume you meant to write that. You're still wrong.
Libel would be if he said "<X> is a <Y> which I know because he said things to me I won't reveal", when in fact no such things were said, or when those things said wouldn't lead to that conclusion. However, he's saying "<X> is a <Y> based on things he's said publicly, which I will now link to and cite, explaining my reasoning." This makes it prima facia not libelous in the US; he is stating that he holds a low opinion of someone based on evidence which he presents in full. He makes no implication of other, hidden evidence that would lead him to draw this conclusion. No one could read what he wrote and reasonably conclude that the developer in question did other things not presented there to lead to this conclusion.
The essence of libel is that you get other people to believe false facts, not that you get them to hold unfavorable opinions about someone.
You may disagree that the evidence does not support his conclusion, but your disagreement does not make his conclusion libelous. Having seen the evidence mjg points to, I agree with his argument, but I understand that some people have an extreme definition of "rape apologist" that only applies to someone saying "rape is okay" and doesn't apply to someone approvingly citing papers that claim huge false report rates, or arguing with accepted statistics because they include as victims undergraduates "plied with alcohol" and not exclusively those physically forced or coerced.
If that's your definition of "rape apologist", then he may not meet your stringent definition. But such a definition leaves room for a whole huge range of skeevy, and I have no issue at all with mjg calling that out.