61–70 of 231 posts
> I know I’m like a broken record about it: defamation requires a provably false statement of fact, This is actually not true in all jurisdictions. In Sweden a statement can be defamatory even if true. A Swedish politician was found guilty of defamation for mentioning on Facebook that the legal counsel of an opposing party in a civil law suite she was involved in had been sentenced for a a child sex crime. It was fac…
I doubt this is relevant, as she apparently posted a series of videos with the claims. This was not a one off card reading that she could claim simply a valid interpretation. While there might not be precedent for this particular issue, quite a number of people have claimed God, or some other religious idea was behind their actions. Never seems to help their case.
I took a look at some of the videos on the tik tok. One video in, I see the a bunch of factual claims about a relationship between the professor and one of the students (which the professor denies) with no reference to them being opinion or even derived from tarot cards (though there are out of cards appearing on a table). https://www.tiktok.com/@ashleyisinthebookoflife/video/717838... I'm curious if one of the other…
Greetings. I'm rather new here and a friend steered me towards here. I'm a pagan, and unfortunately this has caused a rather ugly stir in our communities. In recent (last 1.5 years), TikTok has been the primary contributing 'terrible occultists, witches, and pagans'. Their practices equate to what we would describe as cargo cultism, commercialism, and general lack of any understanding what we do. Most of us look down…
There is no science to tarot reading. There may be a well-defined methodology, but that doesn’t make it a science because it’s not testable and doesn’t make any predictions falsifiable more so than chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But tarot reading is an appeal to a supernatural force; your religious beliefs do not need to conform to what is commonly believed by other people in order to be fully protected.
The idea here is that it is at least conceivable, if not especially likely, that you could generate some evidence that the Tarot reader just made things up on the fly, claiming to have read something in Tarot cards completely inconsistent with normal Tarot interpretation or their own previous readings; there might just be evidence that they deliberately made it up (we know they made it up, but you might find evidence…
Didn't read the article, but any hint of an "it is merely entertainment, not to be believed" element of defense?
> I know I’m like a broken record about it: defamation requires a provably false statement of fact, This is actually not true in all jurisdictions. In Sweden a statement can be defamatory even if true. A Swedish politician was found guilty of defamation for mentioning on Facebook that the legal counsel of an opposing party in a civil law suite she was involved in had been sentenced for a a child sex crime. It was fac…
Pretty much no statement of law is true in all jurisdictions; Ken White is an American lawyer who writes on American law (except when he expressly notes otherwise), and, while defamation may be defined somewhat differently in differenr US jurisdictions, the particular description at issue is true in all US jurisdictions.
EDIT: Or at least it generally has been held to be, and to be guaranteed to be as a matter of Constitutional law. The 1st Circuit has apparently carved out a narrow exception, as mentioned by a sibling comment, and it will be interesting to see how other courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, handle that issue. But since this is a matter of public concern, that exception is irrelevant to the case at hand.
Greetings. I'm rather new here and a friend steered me towards here. I'm a pagan, and unfortunately this has caused a rather ugly stir in our communities. In recent (last 1.5 years), TikTok has been the primary contributing 'terrible occultists, witches, and pagans'. Their practices equate to what we would describe as cargo cultism, commercialism, and general lack of any understanding what we do. Most of us look down…
I’m confused by the idea that “Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders” is a statement of opinion. It seems like a clear example of what I’d consider a factual claim; it’s objectively true or false based on what happened in the physical world. Why does the factualness of her reasons for speaking the claim affect whether the claim itself is defamatory?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea here is that it is at least conceivable, if not especially likely, that you could generate some evidence that the Tarot reader just made things up on the fly, claiming to have read something in Tarot cards completely inconsistent with normal Tarot interpretation or their own previous readings; there might just be evidence that they deliberately made it up (we know they made it up, but you might find evidence…
I've seen broad instructions to the effect that would-be tarot readers should spend time gradually developing their own set of meanings or associations for their deck of cards. Didn't read the article, but any hint of an "it is merely entertainment, not to be believed" element of defense?